Box, Folder 12 – General Speeches

 

February 8, 1972, R & D Programs in Defense, Von Neumann Lecture Panel, IEEE Wincon, Los Angeles, CA

 

2/8/72, Typewritten text of Packard’s speech

 

Packard says “…defense R&D has provided about half of the federal government’s R&D support….I think if one looks back over the years a very good case can be made that defense R&D dollars have made a significant contribution to the progress of science and technology, and resulting commercial application in this country.”

 

“Now, while defense R&D contributions have had this important impact, the prime purpose of the R&D program is to support the national security policy of the country. I would like to talk with you about that for a minute or two, because I believe that some of the problems that have been troubling this country are in large part a result of foreign policies we followed prior to 1969.”

 

Packard says that some “very basic” changes have been made in America’s international security policy. “Actually, I don’t think this country yet recognizes what bold and imaginative leadership President Nixon has given this matter. The new course he has charted will have a significant impact on defense R&D directions and trends because these should be tailored to meet the defense requirement of the future.”

 

Packard recalls that since WW II the U.S., being the dominant economic power in the world, provided security for our NATO allies and well as for Japan and other countries in Asia. “In addition,” he says “we provided the countries in Europe, and Japan, economic aid and many other forms of assistance. In total I think that to a very large degree the troubles we have been experiencing result from the fact that this policy – while very effective and desirable and correct in perhaps the first two decades after World War II – reached the end of its usefulness in the 1960s. I believe we are fortunate to have a President who recognized this and who has been able to take some very significant steps to make a change.”

 

 

 

 

Packard explains that President Nixon initiated a study to assess just “what federal resources are likely to be available for all of our national goals, and how these resources might appropriately be reallocated between defense and the nation’s other priorities. From these studies, what has become known as the Nixon doctrine began to emerge.”

 

“First, the President said we will maintain a nuclear deterrent adequate to meet any threat to the security of the United States or to our allies.”  Packard emphasizes that the President said “adequate nuclear deterrent,” not the “substantial nuclear superiority” he says we have had. “That is no longer possible in any real sense. Because it is not, it is absolutely necessary that we maintain an adequate nuclear deterrent, and the defense programs are designed to do that. The President also said that we will help other nations develop the capability of defending themselves. This simply says that in the future we will not take the full responsibility for the security of all our friends around the world. They should take a larger share of this load. The President also said we will honor all of our treaty commitments; we will act to defend our interests whenever or wherever they are threatened – but where our interests are not involved, our role will be limited. We will not intervene militarily.”

 

Along with the changes in the international security policies of the country, Packard says “The changes made in the defense policy including defense research and development programs, have been designed to implement this new overall policy.” He gives an example: “In 1968 the defense budget was 9.5 % of our gross national product. In 1973 the defense budget will be 6.5% of the GNP.” And he points out that this drop of three percentage points represents over $30 billion.

 

“This reduction in expenditures , and the reductions in manpower, make it imperative that we maintain an adequate nuclear deterrent. The President has also expressed this in saying that we should put more reliance on negotiation and more reliance on partnership, both based on a position of strength.”

 

Packard says negotiations are proceeding with the Soviets on reduction of strategic arms; and while he sees it likely that “some agreement” will be reached, he doesn’t think a substantial reduction in strategic nuclear forces on the part of either nation will result.

 

“It is going to be very important that this country maintain a strong effort in research and development relating to the strategic nuclear area, and that is recognized in the 1973 budget. We are continuing some important programs – MIRV [Multiple Independent Re-entry Vehicle]for example. This program received considerable criticism, but thank God we have it. If we did not, we would be in a very serious situation today with relation to the Soviet Union’s buildup of forces. We are also adding some money to increase and improve the command and control capability of our strategic forces And, we are recommending the development of the long range underwater missile….”

 

Packard says “We have reduced manpower in the military services by a substantial amount….We can afford the future lower level of forces, but we cannot afford to have lower level of forces with inferior weapons….Much has been accomplished already [to improve the capability of our armed forces], but I am convinced that significant improvements in the capability of these forces in the future can be had by further application of technology – a continued high level of research and development.”

 

“As you all well know, there are several facets to research and development. I want to say a word or two about the basic research program of the Defense Department, and then I want to talk about the problems of development – because a great deal of time and energy has been spent in determining how the country can get more for its dollars in new weapons development.”

 

“A few figures might help put this in context. The defense budget contains a significant element for what we call basic research. That number in 1973 will be $350 million. In 1965 it was $380 million.” When the effect of inflation is taken into account Packard says the actual reduction has been about 30%.

 

“In the area of exploratory development – here we find there has been some increase, but very little. In 1965 the figure was $1.099 billion, and in 1973 it will be $1.145 billion. This is slightly more, but in terms of level of effort and in terms of what it will buy – significantly less.

 

“Finally, I want to say a word about the management of research and development in the Defense Department. There are really two  basic problems, that I think you recognize. The first is in deciding what is going to be developed, and these decisions must be made in terms of designing the forces for our future requirements. The decisions cannot be made in isolation, in any sense of the word. There are tremendous diversionary pressures at work. The Army very seldom steps up and agrees to reduce its manpower so that the Navy can have more ships and the Air force can have more airplanes – and vice versa. There are pressures by the industrial people for their pet programs, and these pressures come not only directly to the Services or the Pentagon, they also are directed to a considerable extent to members of the Congress.

 

“There are very difficult problems in making good decisions, and then problems in getting those decisions accepted. Generally speaking, if an organization doesn’t accept a program or a policy, it is not going to make it work. We found it was necessary to spend quite a bit of time getting programs accepted by the

Services. I feel we made good progress in this procedure because we tried hard to bring into this decision making process a combination of military experience, military judgments, and good objective analysis.”

 

“Another thing that was important to make sure that each of the Services had just as much voice in court as any one of the OSD offices. That had not been the case before….We tried very carefully to make it clear that Service recommendations carried just as much weight with us as did the recommendations of systems analysis or any other of the OSD offices. I hope this policy will be continued, because I think it was conducive to better decisions.

 

“The second problem that we have in all R&D is how to implement the programs that have been approved….One of the things that became evident to me early in the game was that there had been to much reliance on paperwork in these studies. One of the most important reasons I wanted to see the Services go to prototype programs is because I think it will help them develop some better habits and better approaches to these important development jobs.”

 

“We tried to cut back on directives. I made a check before I left Washington, and found that we were spending $135 million less on paper work in 1971 than we did in 1969. As far as I can see, nobody missed a bit of it. So at least some progress has been made.

 

“I believe there has been some improvement in the approach to the management of research and development in the defense Department during these past three years. I think most important of all, however, is the matter that I touched on at the beginning. There has been a significant change in the direction of our foreign policy – our international security policy – and this has provided a better base for future planning. In the long run, this new assessment of American foreign policy may turn out to be the most significant contribution of this period.”

 

“Now on some specific policies, I think one of the things that has happened during the past decade in the defense department is that there has been too much emphasis on systems analysis. There has been a trend to try and cost out the programs too precisely, and to try and make industry pay in one way or another for any benefit they might achieve in translating defense research and development into commercial programs. This attitude came to a head in 1969 when the general disillusionment with Vietnam – the anti-defense attitude – was at its peak. Senator Mansfield, as you know, said we couldn’t have any research programs unless they had a direct relevance to military requirements. He essentially said, you can’t do those things which would tend to enable research and development to be useful for other purposes than defense. The policies on independent research and development also have been poor. The attitude has tended to require that independent research and development , supported by companies, be directed only to defense requirements. Here again it will be much better if companies are encouraged to use some of their independent research and development funding  to try and translate some of their defense technology into non-defense products. I hope this policy can be changed. I don’t think anything very specific is necessary except some expression at the higher levels that this is appropriate, and I would encourage that to be done.

 

“While the defense has, as I have said, supported the largest individual share of federal research and development , there are a great many areas where I believe better cooperation between the defense Department and other agencies of the government would be helpful. We tried to work together and I think that we did make some progress in better cooperation.

 

“There are many areas where development within NASA’s field also was useful in defense programs. We tried to get together on programs, for example on short takeoff aircraft, which would have both commercial and defense requirements. I hope that programs like these can move ahead.”

 

“So, in summary ladies and gentlemen, you might conclude that I believe we have had some very interesting problems to address these past three years. I think that some significant progress has been made, particularly in the all important area of recognizing that this country needed a new approach and a new policy for both its international affairs and also the way in which it handles some of its defense programs, including research and development. I am very encouraged to see the interest in this subject here, and I am sure that with the support and continued of people in industry and the continued fine work by your representatives here from the government, there can be some real progress made toward better solutions and better outcomes for these very important problems.”

 

2/8/72, Printed program for the Convention

1/26/72, HP memo from Dave Kirby to Dave Packard giving some information about press interest

1/26/72, Letter to Packard from H. A. Samulon, General Chairman, Wincon ’72 thanking him for agreeing to participate in their Convention, and giving some details about the schedule

1/31/72, Letter to Packard and two other principal speakers from Edward E. David Jr., from The White House, discussing speaking subject material

2/1/72, Letter to Packard from H. A. Samulon, discussing arrangements for breakfast on Feb. 8, 1972

2/11/72, Letter to Packard from H. A. Samulon thanking him for participating in the Convention

2/8/72, Copy of a speech given at the Convention by Dr. Lewis M. Branscomb, titled Environment for Innovation

 

 

Box 3, Folder 13 – General Speeches

 

February 15, 1972,  Measurement Managers Symposium, Palo Alto, CA

 

Packard is just returning from his service with the Department of Defense, and was asked to speak at this Symposium  on metrology sponsored by HP.

 

2/15/72, Copy of text of Packard’s speech handwritten, often in outline form, by Packard

 

Packard says that the three years in DOD was a “great experience – worked closely with White House in development of President Nixon’s foreign policy – development of plans for military forces to support strategy.

 

He says Nixon’s policies will provide a “strong military defense and not the enemy of peace – the guardian of peace.”

 

“Forces provided for in 1973 budget: Lower levels of manpower , more capable weapons.

 

“America can not afford both lower levels of manpower and inferior weapons.”

 

Packard gives many line by line budget figures and totals it up as

“Budget authority – 83.4 B, 6.3 B over FY 1972

Expenditures – 76.5 B, up 700 M from 1972

6.4 % of GNP vs 9.5% in 1972 – lowest drain on economy in 22 years

 

He says the budget puts “more reliance on technology, much attention to improving management of development and procurement.

”More reliance on testing hardware and less reliance on paperwork

 

“The procedures that have been followed in past have not given us reliable equipment.

 

“Equipment is more complex – F4 – mean time before failure a few hours, barely time of one mission.

 

“Reliability must be designed into equipment – rigid adherence to mil specs does not assure reliability – Hardware must be built and tested and the results fed back to correct problems. The lessons we have learned here at HP – do not sell it until you have tested production prototypes is the lesson the military people have not yet learned.

 

“We made some progress – prototype program – on smaller equipment. Will be hard to convince bureaucracy that a commercial product not built to mil spec may be more reliable than  a mil spec product simply because all the bugs have been shaken out and fixed.

 

“New office of operational testing established – make sure every new program has adequate testing built in and is done before too much money spent on production.

 

“Contract procedures:  Competitive bidding not always good – mC5A worst possible kind of contract. Cost incentive and sole source often gets best value for money.

 

“This has been a difficult three years for DOD. Criticism has been loud and bitter and often distorted and unfair.

 

[There are] “fine capable people in DOD and all services – just as you will find anywhere in our society. They are dedicated, capable, and they deserve our support. When we find it frustrating remember they are under great pressure from criticism, we should help when we can.

 

“Measurement has been my first love since the late 1930s when I used to drool over the General Radio catalog. It has been an exciting field and will continue to grow in importance. You have each made an important contribution to the great progress – there is no end to the opportunity ahead.”

 

2/14-16/72, Copy of printed program for the Symposium

2/14/72 Typewritten program with comments on intent of sessions

2/14/72, Typewritten list of attendees

 

 

Box 3, Folder 14 – General Speeches

 

February 17, 1972, Strong Defense-Guardian of Peace, The Union League Club of Chicago

 

3/17/72, Typewritten text of Packard’s speech

 

Packard says that he was “fortunate to have had the opportunity to serve during the first three years of President Nixon’s administration. I say that for many reasons, but foremost because these have been three years of bold and imaginative leadership by our President.

 

“If anyone doubts that bold and imaginative leadership was needed, just recall for yourselves the state of this nation in 1968. And he enumerates several items:

 

Rioting and burning on the streets

Universities in shambles

Over half a million servicemen and women in Vietnam with no plan to bring them home

In the second quarter of 1968 an average of 360 American killed in Vietnam each week – hundreds more injured

Domestically, inflation destroying all previous economic progress

 

“In short,” Packard says, “America was in deep trouble at home and abroad.”

 

“If anyone doubts the effectiveness of President Nixon’s bold and imaginative leadership during these three years, compare those dark days of 1968 with the spring of 1972.” And he ticks off several points:

 

Peaceful and legal protest has replaced rioting and burning on the streets

Universities are back in the business of education

Our forces in Vietnam have been reduced by 418,000

By the fourth quarter of 1971 average number of Americans killed each week reduced to six

Bold steps taken to control inflation

Confidence in American leadership at home and abroad rising”

 

Packard says there is something “even more important about these three years. When the history of the 20^th Century is recorded, 1968 will be recognized as the end of one era and the beginning of a new one. The end of the old era came when American military and economic commitments finally overextended our nation’s resources to the breaking point.

 

“By 1968 most people in Washington and throughout the country recognized we were in serious trouble. In the Senate the liberals were making the most critical noises, although their past policies were the very ones which had caused the disastrous situation. Even Senator Fulbright, Dean of the Senate in foreign affairs and chairman of the foreign Affairs Committee, had no particular plan except to withdraw from the world. He wanted troops withdrawn from everywhere and all aid stopped. Others wanted substantial cuts in defense. Many advocated immediate withdrawal from Vietnam even though at that time it would have been unconditional surrender by the United States. There was no plan, no usable policy suggested by the Senate majority. They were simply wailing and flailing.”

 

Packard says it was fortunate that President Nixon had the courage to seek a new course. “It is President’s Nixon’s courage and vision that has made his leadership possible. It is because he charted a bold and positive course for America that his leadership has been effective.”

 

“[The] extensive planning for President Nixon’s new course toward a generation of peace was of great importance to our planning and budgeting work in the Defense Department. We had an important part in helping to develop these policies and they, in turn, provided the foundation for our planning of future military forces.

 

“The new policies were first delineated in Guam in 1969 by the President and have come to be known as the Nixon Doctrine. The President in his address to the nation on January 20 of this year restated this new course for our foreign policy in the following terms:

 

• We will maintain a nuclear deterrent adequate to meet any threat to the security of the United States or of our allies.
• We will help other nations develop the capability of defending themselves.
• We will faithfully honor all of our treaty commitments.
• We will act to defend our interests whenever and wherever they are threatened any place in the world.
• But where our interests or our treaty commitments are not involved our role will be limited.
• We will not intervene militarily.
• But we will use our influence to prevent war.
• If war comes we will use our influence to try to stop it.
• Once war is over we will do our share in helping to bind up the wounds of those who have participated in it.

 

“This is a decisive change from the American foreign policy which prevailed from 1945 to 1968. During that period we were undisputed in military and economic strength everywhere in the world, and we thought we could act accordingly. President John F. Kennedy set the stage to carry the same foreign policy into the decade of the 1960s. In his inaugural address in 1961 he said:

 

‘We shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support  any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty.’

 

Neither President Kennedy nor other leaders of the Democratic Party foresaw that this policy would commit us to Vietnam and bring America to the brink of disaster before the end of the decade.”

 

Packard says President Nixon’s policy is “designed to deter major conflict, limit minor conflict, and accommodate to change. It is based on three pillars – negotiation, partnership, and strength. Important steps have already been taken building on these pillars.

 

“We have already made considerable progress in negotiating a better understanding with the Soviet Union on a number of issues which will have a major impact on the future peace and security of the world. A treaty prohibiting nuclear weapons on the ocean seabeds has been concluded. A new treaty on Berlin, and a treaty on germ warfare, are two other important steps. Negotiations are underway with the Soviet Union directed at strategic nuclear arms limitations. These talks, which are identified as SALT, have been serious and constructive. At least limited agreement is likely to be achieved in the near future.

 

“As a result of the President’s leadership, fighting has stopped in the Middle East, replaced with discussions moving toward serious negotiations. Every conceivable effort has been made to find a way to negotiate an acceptable solution to the Indochina problem. These have been important first steps from an era of confrontation to an era of negotiation.

 

“Partnership has always been an important element of foreign policy. Nations have joined together to improve their security where they have a common interest. When we say that partnership is one of the three pillars of our new foreign policy, what is meant is that in the future our friends and allies, as our partners, will be expected to bear a larger share of the burden for their own security. They will be expected, as our partners, to take a more responsible role in international monetary policy and international trade as well. Parallel with this, as they carry a larger share of the burden, it is appropriate that they have a larger voice in determining the course of the partnership in areas relating to their national interests.

 

“This new course in American foreign policy, involving as it does a readjustment of responsibilities among the free nations of the world, and a readjustment of American commitments around the world, has a substantial influence on the level and kind of military forces this nation will need in the decades ahead. Reduced commitments, in general, can allow for reduced levels of military forces. In deciding whether there can be an absolute reduction or only a relative reduction, we must not forget that realism is essential in military force planning. Our military strength combined with that of our allies must always be adequate to deter war, both nuclear and conventional, and that deterrence must be realistic and responsive to changing world conditions.

 

“An adequate nuclear deterrent is an absolutely essential requirement of President Nixon’s new foreign policy. Without an adequate nuclear deterrent, any significant contribution to world leadership would be impossible. Negotiations would fail and our partners would desert us. If we survived at all as a nation without an adequate nuclear deterrent, it would not be as a great nation.”

 

Packard says the U. S. now has an adequate nuclear deterrent, in spite of a Soviet buildup of nuclear weapons, largely due to the MIRV program. “The MIRV program,” he says, “had considerable opposition, but it has improved the capability of the Minuteman and Poseidon missiles.

 

“We have planned our nuclear forces to be consistent with possible outcomes of the strategic arms limitation talks. We also have taken action to assure that we will have an adequate strategic nuclear deterrent, in case the arms limitation talks fail and the soviet buildup of nuclear weapons continues.

 

“There are two important actions, within these guidelines, which were taken in preparing the 1973 budget. One was to provide for substantial improvements in the responsiveness and survivability of the command and control of our strategic nuclear forces. This is so urgent, that the President has requested a supplemental appropriation to the fiscal 1972 budget so that this program can be accelerated.”

 

“During these past three years Secretary Laird and I undertook very extensive studies to make sure that our strategic nuclear forces will provide an adequate nuclear deterrent – not only for today, but also into the foreseeable future. These forces include land-based missiles, submarine-launched missiles, and manned bombers. This is the so-called triad. By maintaining these three different types of forces, each with a very substantial capability, we make it impossible for an enemy to avoid unacceptable damage in retaliation to any conceivable attack he can mount. This ability must be assured for the 1970s, the 1980s and beyond, until and unless some other way is found to eliminate the possibility of nuclear war”

 

“The FY 1973 budget provides for a strong Navy to counter the rapid Soviet naval buildup, and a strong Air force as well. These forces have smaller numbers of ships and planes than they had in previous years, but they are better ships and better planes, and therefore the forces are more capable. The budget provides for fewer men and women in uniform than in previous years, particularly in the Army. The Army, too, has better weapons. The 1973 budget has a substantial increase in research and development as did the 1972 budget.” And Packard repeats the admonition he has stated before: “I have said many times during these past three years – the realities of the situation indicate that we can have adequate forces for the future with lower levels of military manpower. However, America cannot afford to have both lower force levels and inferior weapons. Military research and development must receive increasing support as we reduce our force levels.”

 

In answer to critics who feel they have not cut back the Defense Budget far enough, Packard points out that “In real dollars, adjusted for inflation, there has been a substantial reduction – over twenty-five billion dollars. The more important criterion is the effect of the Defense Budget on our economy and our federal resources. In 1968 Defense took 9.5% of this nation’s GNP. The 1973 budget will take only 6.6% — the lowest drain on the economy in twenty years….36 billion dollars less in 1973 than in 1968.”

 

“This new course President Nixon has charted for us is designed to bring to American and the world a generation of peace. To achieve this goal will require strong leadership along the course. There will be difficult negotiations to resolve areas of conflict without confrontation that could lead to war. There will be difficult negotiations ahead with our friends and allies to get them to accept a fair share of the burden of partnership. Above all, success toward our goal of a generation of peace requires that we maintain strong military forces -–strong to back up the sincerity of negotiations with our enemies; strong to insure the confidence and support of our friends.

 

“America must lead the nations of this world in the attainment of this exciting goal in the decade of the 1970s. America can take this lead only so long as she remains strong.

 

“In the words of our President – ‘Strong military defenses are not the enemy of peace. They are the guardian of peace.”

 

 

1/11/7, Letter to Packard from Robert W. Bergstrom, President, Union League Club of Chicago, inviting Packard to speak at their annual Presidents Dinner.

3/17/72, Copy of the program for the dinner.

2/18/72, Letter to Packard from Colonel Raymond B. Furlong of the Department of Defense. Col. Furlong says he was delighted at how well Packard’s speech was received. He also encloses a newsclip wherein Packard is quoted as saying “We are at the point now where we could take all American troops out of South Vietnam and the South Vietnamese would be fairly capable of defending themselves.” The Colonel says “Dan, Jerry and I wanted to take this opportunity to suggest that should you be faced with a similar question in the future, you might want to use something like. ’We have provided the South Vietnamese with the time and the equipment that will permit them to become able to defend their country. Their success in this defense now rests upon their own will and determination. As far as US troop levels in Vietnam are concerned, we have made it very clear that UDS troops have not had an active ground combat responsibility since last July and that since that time our men have had the primary mission of defending our own installations and personnel. The President has made it clear that some US troops will remain in Vietnam until all US POWs have been released and the MIA accounted for. Meantime, the President continues to bring Americans home.”

 

2/22/72, Letter to Packard from Robert Bergstrom, thanking him for speaking at the Club’s dinner.

2/23/72, Letter to Packard from Kenneth Block thanking him for speaking at the Club’s dinner.

3/1/72, Letter to Packard from Roger E. Henn enclosing a “small” check to cover expenses and offering to add more if this is not adequate.

4/11/72, Letter to Packard from Robert Bergstrom, enclosing a copy of the Club’s publication which covered Packard’s speech, plus a pamphlet containing a speech Bergstrom had made in June of 1971.

2/29/72, Copy of a letter from Margaret Paull [Packard’s secretary] to Roger Henn of the Union League Club listing air fare expenses for Mr. and Mrs. Packard of $539.00.

3/6/72, A note to Packard from Roger Henn enclosing a check “for the rest of your expenses”

Undated, A copy of an expense report listing expenses of $300 for Mr. and Mrs. Packard’s visit to Chicago.

 

 

Box 3, Folder 15 – General Speeches

 

February 23, 1972, Improving R&D Management through Prototyping, NSIA Prototyping Seminar, St. Louis, MO

 

The program for this meeting contains this lead paragraph:  “The services are presently formulating prototype activities and implementation policies. NSIA [National Security Industrial Association] recognizes the appropriateness of this time to exchange ideas and to develop a greater understanding of prototyping within industry and the military services. A day and a half symposium  has been designed to present, question, and thoroughly examine prototyping concepts and policies based upon real experiences. In addition to the program participants listed below, program managers, chief engineers, contracting officers, and RFP writers from the Army, Navy, and Air Force will be invited to attend.” Those “listed below” as speakers include several Generals from the military, and top R&D managers from industry.

 

2/23/72, Typewritten text of Packard’s speech.

 

Packard calls this seminar an “historic conference on prototyping;” saying, “This is the kind of a meeting which should make a real contribution to what has been my favorite subject during these past three years.”

 

Packard says that “As I joined Mel Laird in the Spring of 1969 to help in the management of the Department of Defense, one of the most serious problems we faced was the unsatisfactory record over the last decade of the Department, the Military Services, and the industry, in the job of the development and procurement of new weapons systems.”

 

Packard says that during the past three years he “had the opportunity to work on this problem in an extensive and detailed way.” He refers to policy changes which were covered in memorandums, new directives and other written statements; and says that while these have been in the right direction “it will take a great deal more time and effort to correct the disastrous practices which have been developed by this so-called military industrial complex over the past decade.

 

“Cost over-runs were the most visible symptom of the troubled new weapons development situation, but there were other problems, too. Most programs took far too long from original conception until weapons were delivered to the forces. As a result many weapons, particularly those involving electronics and other fast moving technology, were out of date by the time they were made available.” And he cites an example of seeing “air-to air missiles using 1950 vintage vacuum tube circuitry – still in the forces in 1970.”

 

In addition to high cost and long development time, Packard says “many of the new devices did not have the reliability that is needed for military use.”

 

“”I believe we have learned a great deal during the past three years in understanding the causes of these difficulties. We were able to take a number of specific steps which point the way to major improvement. As I have said many times, however, only if the people in the Defense Department and in the Services find new and better ways to work with industry will these serious deficiencies be corrected. Major changes are absolutely necessary by both industry and the government if we are to have the military capability adequate for the future security of America and the free world.” And Packard expresses the hope that the audience will “address the subject as one which can and must be a big step forward in making major changes in this development and procurement business.”

 

“One of the major factors in cost over-runs has been irresponsible low estimates at the beginning of a program. ‘Buy-ins’ by contractors has been a big element of this irresponsibility. Another contributing factor has been the attempt to price out a full program before the new weapon is developed.” Packard refers to tools, such as “parametric costing” which “can help in making reasonably accurate cost estimates of a new product before it is developed, but apparently those in authority preferred to rely on wishful thinking. The record is nothing anyone can be proud of.”

 

Packard describes how prototyping “can help in this matter because this approach will allow a new weapon development to be undertaken without having to make a commitment to production or to use in the forces before the development is complete.”

 

“…projecting the program cost including the production cost can be delayed until the prototype is complete and tested. With a hardware model, better cost estimates are possible and there will be much less excuse for gross errors in projecting a program cost.

 

“Buy-ins can also be reduced with the prototype approach if the people in the Defense Department have the guts to go to sole source negotiated contracts with the firm that demonstrates it can do the job by producing a prototype which is proven by testing.

 

“These false cost estimates and ‘buy-ins’ are not cost overruns that necessarily represent real waste, but they insure that a program will look like money has been wasted. They are in the nature of conspicuous waste. They give the ‘Proxmires’ and the press the opportunity to make you people look stupid. I can assure you that you will continue to look stupid until and unless you correct this situation of absurdly low cost estimates and buy-ins.

 

In addition to this conspicuous waste, Packard says “There has been real waste of both time and money in almost every program in which production was started before development and testing was complete – and that includes almost every program.

 

“Engineering changes that are made on the production line are costly and wasteful. They generate waste, real waste, as you all know, right down through the sub-contract structure.

 

“Hundreds of millions of dollars have been wasted buying spare parts before the final design is settled and before the real requirements for spares have been confirmed.” Packard refers to a recent finding by the GAO that said over a hundred million dollars had been wasted on spares on one program alone. Packard says he knows the GAO was right.”

 

“It will be helpful to consider the prototype approach in two separate phases, each of which can serve to correct some of the serious failings we have had in this business. The advanced development prototype is one kind of a prototype program. The production prototype is another kind of a prototype program. Each has its place – each can contribute to a better job in the future.

 

“The advanced development prototype can serve to verify and reduce the technology to hardware…[It] should be administered whenever possible to provide alternate choices for the force requirement. In the past alternate choices for a force requirement have been evaluated by paper studies, system analysis procedures, and they have been influenced by the divisive forces between the Services and often within a Service.

 

“By the time the fighting is over and a particular program is selected, the whole issue is set in concrete and can hardly be changed by an act of Congress. This process has often resulted in a poor decision with no possibility that it can be corrected later.

 

“If the decision as to which way to go can be kept open until several alternate routes have been evaluated by building and testing prototypes, I am sure we will have better decisions on the question of what weapons to develop for our future forces.

 

“Once an advanced development prototype has been selected as the basis for a major program there will be much yet to be done in engineering before a commitment to production is made. Here is the place for more reliance on production prototypes. These should be built to a production design on production tooling and with production methods. It is only when you in government and you in industry face up to the fact that production prototypes must be built and tested before major investment in production, before deciding on and ordering spares, before taking actions for training and deployment, that you will solve the problem that has been plaguing you.

 

“I know you will claim that waiting for the production prototype to be tested before taking corollary actions on a major program will result in delays. Let me emphasize, during the three years I spent in the Pentagon I found hardly a program that was not delayed anyway.” Packard gives an example he recently saw at an air field “…where there were hundreds of students and instructors and extensive investments to train pilots for C-5As. They had three C-5As all right, but none had engines, and none could fly….Judicious use of prototypes can help avoid such stupid performance in the future.

 

“The third serious problem that troubles all of our recent major programs is reliability. Numerous directives, specifications, and other requirements have been placed on all major development programs to attempt to improve the reliability of new weapons. Very little improvement, if any, has come from this effort and very large sums of money have been spent.

 

“Reliability cannot be achieved by adhering to detailed specifications. Reliability cannot be achieved by formula or by analysts. Some of these may help to some extent, but there is only one road to reliability. Build it, test it and fix the things that go wrong. Repeat the process until the desired reliability is achieved. It is a feedback process and there is no other way. Prototypes are an important key to this procedure.”

 

“A few months ago at a meeting of military project managers, someone objected to extensive testing because it would delay the program. He complained that testing showed up things that needed to be fixed and it took time to fix them, and this would delay the IOC. Unless we get rid of that kind of thinking there will be no hope.

 

“Prototyping must be backed with testing, and schedules must not be fixed until we have a hardware model that meets the requirement of the job and which has demonstrated reliability.”

 

“Let me repeat what I said at the beginning. I believe we have made real and important progress in improving the management of the development and production of new weapons during these last three years. What has been done is only a beginning – your critics are far from satisfied.

 

“Senator Stennis, who is one of your best and most powerful friends in the Senate, has told me personally he is not satisfied with what has been done. He expects better performance in the future and if better performance is not forthcoming, he will find it harder and harder to defend your cause in the Congress.

 

“Even such a consistent advocate of strong defense as Senator Goldwater has accused me of throwing up my hands and saying the whole thing is hopeless. I will admit there have been times during these past three years when I felt that way, but I want to assure you here, and every one else, I did not leave that Department for any disillusionment I might have had from time to time on this, or any other subject. I am, in many ways, sorry my personal circumstances were such that I could not stay longer.

 

“I am, in fact, very encouraged by the great progress we made during these past three years. The most encouraging fact of all is that the majority of people in the Department, industry, and in the Congress, seemed to agree with what we did and gave me excellent support the entire time I was in the Pentagon.

 

“I have often said that the new policies we established, and the improvements we tried to make, will be effective only to the extent they are accepted and implemented by people throughout the Department and throughout industry. I also recognized that it would take considerable time for these new policies to become effective, even if they are correct and proper.

 

“I am especially pleased that you are holding this conference for it is at this level that the real improvement must come. You people in the Department of Defense and in the Services, who are responsible for making decisions and working with your counterparts in industry on specific programs and specific projects, are the ones – in fact, the only ones who can bring about the improvement we must have.

 

“Let me make this point very clear. We can convert our critics in only one way – by doing a better job. That is the sole purpose of the prototype approach – the opportunity to demonstrate that you know what you are doing before vast sums of money are committed to a new major program.

 

“I believe the prototype approach can contribute to better thinking, better habits, if you will, on the entire spectrum of Defense contracting.

 

“In conclusion, let me say I am delighted to see such a fine representation here, The defense department – the Military Services – and Defense industry – have an awesome responsibility,. It is your responsibility to provide the weapons this country needs to assure realistic capability to deter war for the future. It is your responsibility to provide these weapons with resources which will not weaken our economy, for in today’s world economic strength is a most important adjunct to military strength.

 

“American industry has been the most productive and the most innovative of any industry in the world. American industry has been the arsenal of democracy and the savior of the free world on at least five separate occasions in our history, going clear back to the 19^th Century.

 

“America looks to the Defense industry and the Defense Department to live up to this great tradition of service to the nation. I am confident enough to say we have steered these great resources back on the right track during these past three years. I know each of you here at this conference will do your part to keep this great talent of our country on the right track in the future Good luck in this great endeavor.”

 

 

2/23/72, Copy of the Seminar program

2/23/72, Copy of the list of speakers at the Seminar

1/21/72, Copy of NSIA Announcement for the Seminar.

1/11/72, Letter to Packard from Brent A. Hardesty, Program Chairman for the Seminar, discussing topic details.

1/31/72, Letter to Packard from Stouffer’s hotel confirming reservation

2/2/72, Letter to Packard from Brent Hardesty, NSIA Program Chairman, enclosing a draft copy of the keynote speech to be given by Ed Ball. Also enclosed is a copy of an invitation to Packard’s replacement as Deputy Secretary of Defense, Kenneth Rush.

2/8/72, Copy of letter to Brent Hardesty from Julian Levine saying Deputy Secretary of Defense Designate Rush will not be able to attend.

2/11/72, Copy of letter to Packard from Sanford N. McDonnell, President McDonnell Douglas, saying he is looking forward to hearing Packard’s talk.

3/1/72, Letter from Secretary of Defense, Melvin Laird, saying he had read, “with pleasure” Packard’s talk.

3/2/72, Letter to Packard from J. M. Lyle of NSIA, thanking him for his participation in the Prototyping Seminar, and confirming details for the March 9^th Award Dinner where NSIA will present Packard with the Forrestal Award

3/6/72, Letter to Packard from Investment Banker W. N. Fangio saying he agrees with Packard’s comments

3/6/72, Copy of an article in the Aviation Week & Space Technology magazine covering Packard’s speech

4/18/72, Letter to Packard from W. H. Johnston, complimenting Packard on the address.

4/27/72, Letter to Packard from V/Adm. Eli T. Reich, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense, asking for permission to print Packard’s speech in an upcoming Journal.

4/28/72, Note to Margaret Paull from Brent Hardesty thanking her for her help.

4/28/72, Letter to Packard from Brent Hardesty complimenting him on his address. Photos enclosed. .[see Packard photo file, folder, HP 1970-1979]

5/2/72, Copy of letter to Hardesty from Packard thanking him for the photos5/3/72, Copy of letter from Packard to V/Adm. Eli Reich giving permission to use his speech

2/23/72, Copy of speech given by David S. Lewis, Chairman of the Board and CEO, General Dynamics Corp.

Undated, Copy of speech titled, Through Prototyping – speaker not identified

Undated, Copies of overhead slides, titled, Skunk Works Projects.

 

 

 

Box 3, Folder 16 – General speeches

 

February 29, 1972, Accepting Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce Distinguished Citizen Award

 

2/29/72, Typewritten text of Packard’s comments, with handwritten notes by him

 

“Lu and I want to thank you for the warm and friendly welcome home from Washington. [The following five italicized paragraphs were handwritten by Packard on the back of the first page of the text of his speech. From his editorial marks it appears he intended to insert these comments at this point.]

 

“It was [a] great satisfaction to serve in President Nixon’s administration during these past three years.

 

“I can say that for many reasons , but particularly because I had the opportunity to participate in a number of areas in which great progress was made.

 

“In the Department [we formed?] new and better policies for the development and procurement of weapons – More defense for the dollars provided by taxpayers.

 

“Major reductions in the Defense Budget in its demands on our economy, [going] from 9.5% of GNP in 1968 to 6.5% of GNP in 1973 – 36 billion dollars less drain on federal resources – lowest in percent of GNP in over 20 years.

 

“Opportunity to participate in the development of President Nixon’s new foreign policy toward a Generation of Peace – from [an] era of confrontation to [an era] of negotiation.”

 

“You do me a great and undeserved honor to place me in the company of the nine persons previously named Distinguished citizens of the Palo Alto chamber of Commerce. And tonight, in these brief remarks, I’d like to recall some words of one of those past recipients of the award, the late President Herbert Hoover.

 

“Fifty years ago Mr. Hoover published a slim little volume titled American Individualism. In it was a sentence which should be written on these walls tonight:

 

‘We cannot ever afford,’ said Herbert Hoover, ‘to rest at ease in the comfortable assumption that right ideas always prevail by some virtue of their own.’

 

‘There have been periods of centuries,’ Mr. Hoover wrote, ‘when the world slumped back toward darkness merely because great masses of men became impregnated with wrong ideas…’

 

“Surely,” Packard says, “he must have had in mind the great power of government propaganda, which had been so evident on both sides during World War I. And certainly all of us, as individual American citizens, must continue to evaluate critically the official explanations of any public authority.

 

“But there is another sort of propaganda about which I presently am even more concerned: Call it the anti-government line, or – if you dare to be as vague as the peddlers of the line – call it ‘anti Establishment.’

 

“Probably most of the businessmen and industrialists in this audience have been targets of such propaganda attacks. You have been told that your profits are excessive and your products shoddy. If you engage in commercial operations beyond the borders of this country, you are automatically labeled ‘imperialists.’

 

“None of you have received the great honor from these anti-American propagandists and hate mongers that I have. If there are mad bombers in this country, they are probably in front of Rickey’s tonight.

 

“There is, of course, more noise than substance in such charges, but the cumulative effect of their constant repetition can be very persuasive.

 

“There is an old adage which says ‘For evil to triumph, good men need only do nothing.” This can also be stated in this way – For evil ideas to prevail, good men need only to remain silent.”

 

“Fortunately, good men and women of the Stanford community did not remain silent, and the purveyors of evil ideas have been exposed at the University.

“Unfortunately, some of these purveyors of evil ideas have moved into your high schools and it is high time for at least a few good men and women in Palo Alto to speak out.

 

“And nowhere, during the past three years, have the assaults been more vicious and less deserved than in the campaigns against the military profession. The fate of the ROTC and the recruiting officers on many of our most prestigious university campuses, including Stanford, is one unfortunate result of this anti-military campaign.

 

“Because I’ve had the opportunity, over the past three years, to become acquainted with a good many professional soldiers, I’d like to use my remaining time to speak out on their behalf.

 

“I’ll start at the top with the Joint chiefs of Staff. They are not only outstanding American citizens – professionals of the highest ability – but at the same time knowledgeable about, and sensitive to, the problems of our society.

 

“As I worked with the men and women in the Defense Department over these three years, I became greatly impressed with the high caliber of people who serve their nation in defense. I worked closely with the Joint Chiefs, the other top officers in each Service, and I had many occasions to visit with men and women in units large and small all over the world. You will find no more capable, dedicated, fine American men and women in any business organization, any city or county government, and school or University, than you will find in American military units and bases wherever they may be. This country can be proud of the military people who provide its security. It has been especially disturbing to me to witness the bitter, often vicious, criticism of the military in the press, on TV, in many of our more liberal universities, and even by Congressmen – who, of all people, should know better. I can understand disillusionment with Vietnam policy going back to 1966 or so, but the military does not deserve criticism for the policy – it was dictated and completely directed from 1964 on by the civilians in the Administration and in the Department at that time. The officers and servicemen and women in the Army, the Navy, the Air force, and Marines simply did what they were asked to do. They were asked to do an almost impossible job, and they did it well.

 

We asked our military people in the spring of 1969 to reorient the emphasis to Vietnamization – to help the South Vietnamese develop their own defense capability so American forces could come home. The Vietnamization policy has been successful beyond everyone’s expectation – most of our forces, over 400,000 have been brought home – South Vietnam can now defend itself from the Communist invaders without help from American forces. When the emotion on this issue dies down this will be recognized as a great accomplishment by American military people.

 

“One point that is often overlooked is that the role of our military services has not been just to defend America. It has also been to develop America. One of the earliest examples of this is the part the Army played in the western movement in American history – in winning of the West.

 

“One of the most exciting things I was able to do while I was in the pentagon was to encourage a renewal of involvement by military people in attacking some of the serious social problems of America. Early in 1969 Secretary Laird and I set forth a statement of Human Goals for the Defense Department. These goals were stated as follows:

 

“To attract to the defense service people with ability, dedication, and capacity for growth;

 

“To provide opportunity for every one, military and civilian, to rise to as high a level of responsibility as his talent and diligence will take him;

 

”To make military and civilian service in the Department of defense a model of equal opportunity for all regardless of race or creed or national origin, and to hold those who do business with the Department to full compliance with the policy of equal employment opportunity;

 

“To help each serviceman at the end of his service in his adjustment to civilian life; and to contribute to the improvement of our society, including its disadvantaged members, by greater utilization of our human and physical resources while maintaining full effectiveness in the performance of our primary mission.

 

“Let me cite the results of just two examples of the application of these Human Goals to defense affairs.

 

“We established a Domestic Action Program to provide a substantial portion of jobs for disadvantaged [youths]. In 1971 the Department hired 46,000 young people, 76% of whom were disadvantaged youths.

 

“In addition, we asked every military base and every military activity in the country to use their resources to support educational, recreational, and cultural programs for disadvantaged youths. Over 2.4 million young people participated in these programs across the country last year. In 1969, the year I came to the Department, there were only 250,000 young people involved. I am kind of proud that ten times as may youngsters had a better summer in 1971 than in 1969 because of what we could do in the Defense Department. This was possible only because the professional military people made the program work.

 

“People all over the country including you people in Palo Alto are being exposed to a largely distorted story about many aspects of your government – in particular about the military – about the fine men and women in the Defense Department who make it possible for you to sleep safely and soundly in your homes, and who make other important contributions to the quality of life in America, your country. Don’t let them down,

 

“Mrs. Packard and I are pleased to be back in this great community, and I am deeply grateful for this award. Thank you very much.”

 

3/8/72, Pages from the Congressional Record, placed there by Rep. Charles Gubser, containing the prepared text of Packard’s comments

1/20/72, Letter to Packard from Richard B. Kluzek of the Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce, discussing the Award ceremony.

2/7/72, Letter to Packard from Wayne Miller saying he will be unable to attend the award dinner, but congratulating Packard for the fine job in Washington.

2/14/72, Letter to Packard from Lyle M. Nelson saying he will be unable to attend the award dinner, but saying he feels Packard has done a great job for the community and for Stanford.

2/18/72, Letter to Packard from J. M. Pettit sending regrets.

2/22/72, Letter to Packard from William E. Kratt, saying he cannot make the award dinner, but adding that he is grateful for Packard’s “friendship and kindnesses” in the past.

3/1/72,   Handwritten note from Lee and Evelyn Webel saying “our country is very fortunate to have a citizen like you.”

3/2/72, Letter to Packard from Kathleen and Merrill Vanderpool  saying they will be unable to attend the dinner.

3/2/72, Letter form Oleg Sherby and G. M. Pound, Stanford Professors, saying they concur with his remarks at the PACC dinner, and adding that they agree with the actions taken against some of the hate mongers at Stanford

3/3/72, Copy of letter from Packard to James Zurcher, Palo Alto Chief of Police, thanking members of the Police Department for conducting Lu and he to Rickey’s, and for their “control of events”

3/13/72, Letter to Margaret Paull from Ralph Rogers, United California Bank, thanking her for her assistance in preparations for the award dinner

2/2/72, Copy of a clipping from the Stanford Daily with an article about the bomb placed at Professor Dornbusch’s house.

2/10/72, Copy of large “ad” from the Stanford Daily signed by many members of the Academic Council, denouncing the personal attacks on members of the Advisory Board, and offering a reward for apprehension of the those responsible for placing a bomb at a Professor Sandy Dornbusch’s house.

2/21/72, Complete copy of the “newspaper” Pamoja Venceremos, discussing events as they see them.

3/1/72, Copy of clipping from the San Jose Mercury covering events at the award dinner.

3/1/72, Copy of page from the Stanford Daily describing events at the dinner, with disruptions both inside and outside Rickeys

3/3/72, Copy of newsclip from the Stanford Daily containing an anti-Packard article written by a student, Don Zweig.. Also attached is a copy of a typewritten letter to the editor from an Al Kirkman (?) effectively rebutting Zweig

 

 

Box 3, Folder 17 – General Speeches

 

March 6, 1972, Toward a Generation of Peace – Bohemian Club

 

Packard was newly returned from his assignment with the Department of Defense.

 

3/6/72, Packard’s  notes  which are handwritten on 3×5” cards and are brief and in outline form

 

Packard says he worked very closely with the President on foreign policy toward a generation of peace.

 

“1968 – a major turning point: Viet Nam a symbol, but not only cause  – burning in streets, universities in shambles, 549,000 in Viet Nam &n no plan

 

“Real Cause

Two decades of  [?]

US 9.5% of GNP

UK 5.6%, West Germany 2.9%, Japan 1%

USSR about the same as US and continues

 

“US share of GNP:

40% in 1950, Japan 1.5%

30% in 1970, Japan 6.2%

 

“US Reserves

50% in 1950 – 10% in 1970

“Vast sums for aid, inflation at home

 

”Real progress from era of confrontation to era of negotiation

Reduced defense, from 9.5% of GNP to 6.5%

 

“Negotiations: SALT, Seabeds, Berlin, China

 

“Partnerships

More NATO support

Korea

Japan

Viet Nam

 

“Two courses for Viet Nam

Surrender

Vietnamization

 

“South Viet Nam can now defend itself

 

“Will not turn South Viet Nam over to criminals

 

“President Nixon has provided great leadership. I left for personal reasons, I am going to do whatever I can to keep him in office.

 

Undated, note to Packard from Margaret Paull saying the Bohemian Club would like him to confirm speaking date

 

 

 

Box 3, Folder 18 – General speeches

 

March 9, 1972,  Acceptance Speech, James Forrestal Memorial Award, NSIA, Washington D.C.

 

3/9/72, Typewritten text of Packard’s speech with some  handwritten notations by Packard.

 

Saying that he had given considerable thought as to what he might say and he ticks off several subjects that crossed his mind: the vast buildup of the Soviet Union, the FY-73 budget, the virtues of the military-industrial complex – but sets these aside as things he has talked about many times.

 

Going on with his review of possible subjects he, rather tongue in cheek, says he “could tell you how the defense industries always complete their jobs on time — meet the specs – and control their costs….

 

“Or, I could talk about the marvelous spirit of cooperation among the Services – how the Army  was always willing to give up some more men so the Air Force could have more planes and the Navy more ships.”  Continuing in this vein with similar comments he gets to the more serious comments he wants to make.

 

He recalls that “National Defense was not in high repute while I was in the Pentagon….In many respects these were traumatic years for one who has faith in the future of his country. They were traumatic when some members of Congress, particularly in the Senate, took great delight in seizing on any fact or figure which could be used…to discredit the military and all those who supported the Defense Department.

 

“They were traumatic when scientists used their reputations gained in unrelated fields to influence legislation to stultify national defense programs – particularly the all-important strategic nuclear programs upon which the security, in fact the very survival, of our country depends.

 

“They were traumatic when former friends in distinguished universities supported ideologies contrary to the democratic concepts of this great nation.

 

“They were traumatic when distinguished members of the news media were, in their reporting, sometimes more favorable to Hanoi, or to Russia, or even toward India than to their own country.

 

“This great nation of ours was indeed in a state of shock in 1968 and in the spring of 1969 when I came to Washington. There was rioting and burning in the streets. Some of our great universities were in shambles. Inflation was rampant and had already eaten away at the economic progress of the previous decade. We had 540,000 men and women in Vietnam, and no plan to bring them home – no course to end U.S. involvement in Indochina other than unconditional surrender at the negotiating table in Paris.”

 

Having had the time for some reflection on the events of this era, Packard says “…it has become evident to me there is nothing so unusual about this period if it is viewed in the long course of history. Our great country had, to a large degree, lost its commitment to a common goal – to a unifying purpose that is so necessary to keep people working together, whether it be in small organizations within the society, or whether it be as a nation.” Without this “common goal”, Packard says “nations decline, decay and eventual death starts….It makes no difference that we had the most powerful military establishment in the history of the world…or the  largest and most efficient research and development capability. It is not what a nation is, but what it wants to be that determines its future.”

 

Packard says he has been very troubled by the divisive nature of the debate as to what our nation’s future goals should be. He sees a “serious lack of understanding of what kind of goals will sustain the vitality of our country in the future. Senator Fulbright is pushing for a fortress Arkansas policy for our future foreign policy. Senator church would prefer that it be fortress Idaho. I can think of no better way to assure the demise of America to the status of a second rate world power by the decade of the 1980s than to follow this line of thinking.

 

“Fortunately, new and exciting goals for America have been established during these past three years under the leadership of President Nixon. I am very proud to have had at least some small part in helping to develop this new and exciting course for our future foreign policy. This new direction has already excited the imagination of the American people, and set the stage for the commitment and purpose which is so necessary if our country is to maintain its position of world leadership into the decade of the 1980s and beyond.”

 

“There is no need to defend the President’s leadership during these three years. Just look at the facts. Peaceful and legal protest has largely replaced rioting and burning in the streets. The great universities and colleges are back in the business of education. More than 400,000 of our servicemen and women have been brought home from Vietnam. U.S. casualties have been reduced nearly a hundred-fold. Our military units that remain are all but out of ground combat, and substantial reductions have been made in air combat activity. The South Vietnamese are now able to defend their country from the Communist invaders, and North Vietnam has no hope whatever of a military victory.

 

“American self confidence at home and American leadership abroad are again on a rising course.”

 

“Whether American will move forward to the challenge of leadership in the decades ahead will depend on what the people of our great nation perceive their role to be….it is well to remember that the desires and commitments of the American people, and the institutions to which they belong will determine the eventual course and outline of history.

 

Packard says the Defense Department reflects the attitude of the nation. If the nation is not united in its goals then the Defense Department will not be strong and effective.

 

“When we came to the Department in 1969, people were not working together effectively. James Forrestal, when he became the first Secretary of Defense, tackled a momentous job. He had the great vision that our military strength would be enhanced under a unified Department.

 

“However, unification is easier said than done. There are strong diverse forces in and around the Department of Defense. It is hard work to keep them headed in a common direction in times of peace. When Secretary Laird and I took on this job in 1969, that was our most important goal. I believe we succeeded to some degree in bringing these diverse forces more nearly together.”

 

Packard says “This country can be proud of the military people who provide its security. It has been especially disturbing to me to witness the bitter, often vicious, criticism of the military in the press, on TV, in many of our more liberal universities, and even by some elected public officials – who, of all people, should know better. I can understand disillusionment with Vietnam policy going back to 1966 or so, but the military does not deserve criticism for the policy – it was dictated and completely directed from the very beginning by the civilians in the Administration and in the Department at that time. The officers and other servicemen and women in the Army, the Navy, the Air Force and Marines simply did what they were asked to do. They were asked to do an almost impossible job, and they did it well.”

 

“The Department’s first and foremost commitment is to the security, the strength, and the world leadership of the United States. This commitment comes before any well-intentioned individual loyalty to the Army, the Navy, the Air Force, or the Marines.”

 

“As I indicated earlier, while some progress has been made, there are still those – both in the Defense Department, and in industry – who have not accepted the larger commitment.

 

“Within the Defense Department, for example, there continues to be a degree of competition between the Services – and frequently between parts of a Service – that is unacceptable because it is inconsistent with the common commitment. Some competition is healthy, but not when it begins to affect such major matters as funding, missions, and roles. Jealousies and in-fighting will only serve to drain our nation’s energies.

 

“In the same vein, I am not much impressed by what I have seen in the attitudes of some of our great corporations in the so-called military industrial complex. You are, of course, aware of the problems we have had with the C-5A, the Mark 48, and other programs which have had much publicity. In many ways, the problems are deeper than they appear to be.

 

“I visited one plant last year that was running a year behind its project schedule. After a couple of hours it was apparent the company knew on the day it signed the contract it would be at least a year off schedule. I asked the manager why he offered to do the job in one year less than was possible. The essence of his reply was – yes, we knew we could not meet the terms of the contract, but there was no way to get the contract if we told the truth.

 

“One serious impediment to good defense management is that defense contractors can appeal directly to the Congress. On one occasion, about two years ago, a company tried to reverse a decision I had made by appealing to one of our Congressional committees. The company’s recommendation was purely one of self-interest and it was wrong. The company knew it, and I knew it, and so I called the management of the company and told them so.

 

“What is the solution? We are going to have to stop this problem of people playing games with each other. Games that will destroy us, if we do not bring them to a halt.

 

“Let’s take the case of the F-14. The only sensible course is to hold the contractor [see also Undated UP news release at end of the text of this speech which names Grumman as the contractor in question]  to his contract. Although some companies may be forced to suffer financially because of this concept, it will not be a major disaster to the country. It will be a very major disaster to the country if we cannot get the military industrial complex to play the game straight. Until and unless we can stop this attitude, we are going to continue to waste the taxpayer’s dollars – [and] get less defense for the dollars we spend.

 

“Quite simply. It means the Army, the Navy, the Air Force, and the Marines must put the welfare of America ahead of the welfare of their respective Service, in peacetime as well as in war. It means the great industrial corporations that forge the seams of our military strength must put the long term gains of America ahead of the short term gains of their respective organizations. It means that Congress should address America’ security policy, stay out of day-to-day administrative problems, and discourage game-playing between the Services and the business community.”

 

“The critics will say – yes, we agree, but power does not necessarily mean military power. There is economic power, the power of moral persuasion, the power of ideas – power beyond that which comes from the barrel of a gun.

 

“We all want to believe this, but the record is not all that persuasive. If there is a case to be made, it is that a united commitment, whether or not backed with military force, is the most commanding factor available to influence the course of human events.

 

“Only if all of us – in Congress, in the Administration, and in the private sector – rise above our  personal biases and our personal interests, will the future course of America and the well-being of the world be secure.

 

“Only if all of us – particularly those who are charged with, or who have the opportunity for leadership -–wipe this blurring film of self-interest from our eyes, will we be able to see the sharply defined images of opportunity and accomplishment that await us in the future.

 

“I have had the opportunity to get acquainted with many fine people in the Services, in the Department , in industry, and in the Congress during my three years in Washington. I know from first-hand experience that you who shoulder the responsibility for the defense of our country have the desire and the ability to do the best possible job. I know we made great progress in working together better. I know that you will carry on with your efforts of working together. As you do, you will demonstrate convincingly to the critics that you have the welfare of the country as your first priority  — and that you deserve their wholehearted support and confidence.

 

“It has been a great privilege for me to be with you tonight and a great honor to receive the Forrestal Award. Thank you very much.”

 

3/9/72, Printed program for the NSIA Forrestal Memorial Award Dinner.

12/17/71, Copy of a letter from Packard to Admiral J. M. Lyle saying he would be honored to accept the 1971 Forrestal Memorial Award

12/20/71, Copy of NSIA press release announcing that Packard will be the recipient of the 1971 James Forrestal Award

12/29/71, Letter to Packard from Edwin H. Gott congratulating him on being named the recipient of the 1971 Forrestal Award

1/4/72, Letter to Packard from Robert B. Chapman III, Chairman of the NSIA Forrestal Award Committee, congratulating Packard and offering assistance in preparing his address.

1/7/72, Letter to Robert B. Chapman III from Packard thanking him for his note of 1/4/72

1/10/72, Letter to Packard from J. M. Lyle enclosing [not here] the announcement of the Award to NSIA members

1/21/72, Letter to Margaret M. Paull [Packard’s secretary] enclosing information about the award dinner and about NSIA

1/28/72, Letter to Packard from Mansfield Sprague, VP AMF Co., saying he would like to meet with Packard for a half hour or so on 3/9 or 3/10 to discuss how defense procurement might be improved.

2/2/72,  Copy of letter to J. M. Lyle from Louris Norstad, Chairman of the Board, Owens Corning Fiberglass Corp., saying he will be unable to attend the Award Dinner for Packard.

2/8/72, Letter to Margaret Paull from J. M. Lyle inviting her to the Award Dinner.

2/18/72, Letter to Packard from Charles F. Adams, Chairman of the Board, Raytheon Co.,

saying “If ever a man deserved this award to the full it is you…Your grasp of the problems involved, your dedication in the job, and the wisdom of your judgments evoked the admiration of all concerned. We already have reason to miss you.”

2/25/72, Letter to Packard from Spencer J. Schedler,  Assistant Secretary of the Air Force, saying he will not be able to attend the Award Dinner, but offering his congratulations

2/29/72, Letter to Packard from Under Secretary of Transportation James M. Beggs, sending regrets and congratulations

3/2/72, Letter to Packard from J. M. Lyle discussing details of the forthcoming dinner and offering congratulations on Packard’s participation at the NSIA Prototyping Seminar on Feb. 23, 1972; [see coverage of this speech above]

3/3/72, Copy of letter from Packard to Mel Laird, Secretary of Defense, sending an advance copy of the speech he plans to give at the Forrestal Award Dinner, asking for any comments Laird may have

3/10/72, Letter to Packard from Donald B. Rice, Assistant Director, Office of Management and Budget saying he had attended the dinner and congratulating Packard on the Award, and saying his speech was a “masterpiece”

3/10/72, Handwritten letter to Packard from W. F. “Red” Raborn, apologizing “for interrupting your dinner with some of my personal views on how to improve the Defense Department”

3/10/72, Letter to Packard from J. M. Lyle thanking him for “a memorable evening,” and saying the NSIA has received “a flood of enthusiastic approval from our members and guests, and many requests for copies”

3/12/72, Letter to Packard from Peter N. Sherrill,  requesting a copy of Packard’s address

3/23/72, Letter to Packard from Harvey M. Sapolsky, University of Michigan, asking for a copy of his speech

3/28/72, Letter to Packard from Samuel A. Scharff, asking for a copy of his speech

4/20/72, Letter to Packard from F. A. Long, Cornell University, asking for a copy of his speech

4/26/72, Letter to Packard from J. M. Lyle inviting Packard to attend a ceremony presenting a bust of James Forrestal to the government for the new James Forrestal Building in Washington.

4/29/72, Copy of letter to J. M. Lyle saying he will be unable to attend the presentation of the bust of Forrestal

6/29/72, Letter from Richard L. Garvin asking for a copy of Packard’s Forrestal Award speech

Undated UP news release, covers Packard’s Forrestal speech and adds this comment, :  “Packard had special criticism for Grumman Aerospace Corp., which says it will not honor future Navy options to order more F 14 fighters unless the contract is rewritten to provide more money.” UP adds this quote from Packard’s speech: “The only sensible course is to hold the contractor to his contract. Although some companies may be forced to suffer financially because of this concept, it will not be a major disaster to the country It will be a very major disaster to the country if we cannot get the military industrial complex to play game straight.”

3/10/72, Clipping from Washing D. C. Evening Star, covering the speech

Dec./Jan. Issue of NSIA News covering the Forrestal Award with Biographical information about Packard

Mar./April Issue of NSIA News which includes some photos of the Award ceremony and background on the Award itself

 

1/22/73, Letter to Packard from J. M. Lyle inviting Packard to the Forrestal Award Dinner on March 15, 1973, where the 1972 Award will be given to James S. McDonnell

2/5/73, Copy of letter from Packard to J. M. Lyle sending regrets

 

 

Box 3, Folder 19 – General Speeches

 

March 13, 1972, Fremont Republican Assembly, Fremont CA

 

3/13/72, There are two almost identical drafts of a speech for Packard to use in Fremont. However, Packard has attached a note to one saying “I did not use this last night, but instead talked off the cuff.” The draft doesn’t sound like a typical Packard speech, and perhaps was written by a staff person at HP. Since there was no transcript of what he actually said, the description of his comments below is based on a report in the News-Register newspaper.

 

3/14/72,  Article in Tri-City newspaper News-Register covered Packard’s speech and the following is based on their article.

 

Packard referred to this as his “first political speech ever made,” adding that “There are a few facts about politics which I am gradually learning, and one of them is that you people in this community have a very big political wallop.”

 

The newspaper  says “Packard took issue with reports that the President may have an easy time winning re-election. He labeled California as a key state in Nixon’s bid for a second term”

 

The newspaper says “Packard itemized what he viewed as the achievements of the Nixon administration’s four years in  power. Packard said President Nixon has made the world safer and the United States more secure through a combination of ‘negotiation, partnership and strength.’

 

Packard predicted, the article says, that the important Strategic Arms Limitation Talks (SALT) now underway between the U. S. and Russia will soon reach a preliminary agreement.

 

Packard clarified, the paper reports, that a prime objective in the talks has been to maintain a ‘realistic and effective nuclear deterrent.’

 

On the policy of strength, the paper quotes Packard saying “It is not possible to negotiate with communist nations except from a position of strength…The ABM system has been a strong bargaining card in the SALT talks. If the MIRV [Multiple Independent Re-entry Vehicle] program had [not]been adopted we would not have a creditable nuclear deterrent today.”

 

On partnership, the paper says Packard said Vietnamization has allowed 400,000 United States military personnel to return home; and they quote Packard as saying the North Vietnamese have been unsuccessful because “they will stop talking only if the president agrees to turn South Vietnam over to them.”

 

The paper says Packard also said that defense spending amounted to 9.5 percent of gross national product in 1968, compared to 6.5 percent in 1972.

 

2/16/72, Note to Packard from Dick Arey saying that “the Fremont Republican Assembly would be honored to sponsor a talk by you in March,” and discussing scheduling.

3/6/72, Clipping from the Fremont News-Register speaking of Packard’s forthcoming talk to the Fremont Republican Assembly”

3/6/72, Copy of a letter from Packard to Mr. and Mrs. Warren Townsend inviting them to dinner to discuss campaign plans.

3/15/72, Copy of a letter to Ralph Fairchild, Editor, The Argus newspaper correcting their quote of Packard saying Senator Henry Jackson tried to stop the ABM system. Packard says he actually said “the Democratic Senators who are candidates with the exception of Senator Jackson tried to stop the ABM and the MIRV programs”

3/15/72, Letter to Packard from Kenneth Castle of the Argus enclosing a clipping correcting the statement

Undated Two papers of notes on background information about the California Republican Assembly and the Fremont area.

 

 

Box 3, Folder 20 – General Speeches

 

March 16, 1972, Accepting the Federal City Club’s Award for Very Distinguished Public Service, Washington D.C.

 

3/16/72, Typewritten text of Packard’s speech with notations by him

 

Packard draws on the writings of Walter Lippman and Plato to the effect that “we human beings frequently act not upon substance but upon shadow, not on the basis of things as they really are, but on the basis of …‘The pictures in our heads.’

 

“Mr. Lippman spoke further of ‘The triangular relationship between the scene of action, the human picture of that scene and the Human response to that picture working itself out upon the scene of action.’

 

“What Walter Lippman visualized with his triangular image, is that when the pictures in our heads become distorted, those distortions  — because we act on them – also infect the reality of the situation. Thus when distortions occur it is important not to waste time wasting blame, but to correct them as quickly as possible before they multiply.

 

“And that is partly what I shall attempt to do this evening,. When I came to Washington, the military increasingly was being portrayed as incompetent and uncontrollable, inefficient and wasteful. Those with an anti-military disposition delighted in quoting a great former general, Dwight Eisenhower, usually out of context, on the dangers of the so-called ‘military-industrial complex’. We heard time and again that our historic tradition of civilian supremacy was in grave jeopardy.”

 

With this background Packard says he wants to review some subjects that fell within his area of responsibility as Deputy Secretary of Defense – starting with management.

“Many people have asked did I enjoy the job, and as many of you know, my answer to that question was I found it very interesting. It was difficult in the sense that there was a great deal to be done, and you felt a  considerable sense of responsibility on your shoulders – which in fact there was.”

 

Packard says, in terms of day-to-day management there was not much difference from management in business – except with the magnitude of the problems and the sums involved. “The same basic management principles that work well in a business organization seemed to work well in the Defense Department, and there is, of course, no reason why they shouldn’t. One of the things I liked best about the job was working with the military. You cannot help but be very impressed with the great dedication of all of the men and women in uniform – and there is something kind of impressive about military discipline. When you are in the chain of command, as I was, and you tell somebody to get something done, it gets done and it gets done well.

 

“The military discipline showed up most effectively and in a most important way during these past three years in the implementation of our Vietnamization program.

Secretary Laird, after his first visit to Vietnam, made Vietnamization the first priority. His instructions were that all commanders were to do everything possible to help the South Vietnamese military build their own capability to do the job. The second priority was to achieve pacification of the countryside, and help the people of South Vietnam start rebuilding their country. The third priority was to fight the enemy. Those were the orders that were followed to the letter from that time on, and I am convinced that when all of the current fussing is over and this period is seen in the right perspective, this Vietnamization program will be recorded as one of the great accomplishments of our men and women in uniform. The picture of the Vietnamization operation has, of course, been distorted by the great emotional furor over the war, by the My Lai trials and by many other problems of this period. But I continually marveled as Mel and I made recommendations of additional things that ought to be done, these were carried out with the greatest precision and efficiency. A clear case I believe where the picture is different from the reality.”

 

Packard points to the Military Airlift Command and the Corps of Engineers  as due particular praise, saying there are many other good examples.

 

“The area, of course, where the services received the most criticism during these past three years was in their management of the development and procurement of major weapons systems. Much of the criticism was justified. I speculated then and since on why the services did such a poor job in handling major procurement programs when they could do such a superb job in other areas. I think we assessed this matter correctly, at least as far as one major factor is concerned, when we concluded that none of the services really considered the development and procurement of major weapon systems to be a recognized profession in the military organization. We directed a number of steps, including training, selection, and recognition of people for these key jobs. We established a new school in this profession. All of these steps I think are in the right direction, but until and unless all three services recognize this job to be as important as commanding a field army or an aircraft carrier, we will continue to be plagued with poor performance.”

 

Packard says civilian involvement in the military can be a problem too. “We must have civilians making overall policy decisions, such as Vietnamization. When it comes, however, to considering specific military actions from Washington – which targets to bomb, what specific constraints are to be put on the forces involved – this kind of civilian involvement in detail military activities tends to be…counter-productive. There is a parallel in the civilian involvement in other cases, particularly this matter of major weapon system development and procurement. The Services have the responsibility for the management of these programs, and for the civilians in the secretary’s office to get involved in any detail is counter-productive. During the last decade there was an increase in involvement of civilians, particularly the Systems Analysis office, but also DDR&E [?] and other offices, in the day-to-day details of these programs. It is hard to find a case where such involvement did not make matters worse rather than better. This kind of involvement violates a basic management principle that is known and applied wherever good management is desired. That principle says: give the manager the responsibility and the authority to do the job, make sure he understands what is expected, and if he can’t get the job done, don’t try to do it for him, but find someone else who can. I was continually amazed to find that this principle was fully accepted by the services in their main mission – that of military operations – yet failed to be accepted in those other areas of great importance that supported this prime mission.

 

“There was also the question of Congressional involvement in the details of these major weapons systems development and procurement programs, as well as in military construction and base operations. No representative of the Congress, for example, would think of telling a field commander how many tanks, how many guns, how many helicopters he should have for a particular military operation. Yet there are self-styled experts  in the Congress on almost every major procurement program. People who know, for example, that the F-14 is not the right kind of an airplane for an aircraft carrier. Or, that the main battle tank is no good, or that the Cheyenne helicopter should not be procured because it can not survive in a hostile environment.

 

“There is a parallel situation in determining how far civilians in the office of the Secretary, in the office of the Bureau of the Budget, and in the General Accounting Office can make useful contributions to some of these kinds of details. I could sometimes say what was on my mind to these fellows. Every time I have gone through this issue to think about what might be done to improve performance, I always arrived back at the same answer: Professional competence in the military services must be developed to manage these major weapon systems procurement programs and we must get as many of the Monday morning quarterbacks as possible out of the game. There just is no other way.

 

“Going back to Mr. Lippmam’s theme of the triangular relationship between the scene of action, the human picture of that scene and to the human response acting on the scene, there are many cases where the human picture is substantially different from the reality of the scene. It may be the human picture held by the public – the human picture held by the Congress – or even by people within the department. Defense issues are complex as well as immensely important. The closer the human picture can be brought to the reality of the scene the better the human response will be. More professionalism and less interference by amateurs will help. Those of you who influence public opinion can also help to the extent you are able to keep the human picture close to the reality of the scene.

 

“ Let me repeat –

 

“I am greatly honored to receive this award tonight. Thank you all very much.”

 

12/13/71, Handwritten letter to Packard from Charles Bartlett, a Washington newsman,  suggesting Packard meet with several newsmen sometime in January

12/15/71, Copy of letter from Packard to Charles Bartlett saying he is going to California for the Christmas holidays and will contact Bartlett when he gets back

12/15/71, Note from Margaret Paull to Dan Henkin sending him a copy of Bartlett’s letter and saying Packard would be interested in what he thought of Bartlett’s suggestion that Packard meet with some newsmen

12/17/71, Memorandum from Daniel Z. Henkin to Packard saying recommending he not meet with the newsmen as Bartlett suggested

1/5/72, Copy of a letter from Packard to Charles Bartlett, Declining the opportunity to meet with Bartlett and other newsmen.

2/2/72, Letter to Packard from Charles Bartlett saying he is pleased that Packard can be present on March 16 to receive the award for Distinguished Public Service from the Federal City Club

2/10/72, Copy of letter from Packard to Charles Bartlett confirming the date and time for the Federal City Club award

3/16/72, Copy of the program for The Federal City Club award dinner.

3/20/72, Copy of memorandum from Packard to Charles Bartlett saying he and Mrs. Packard enjoyed to Award Dinner

3/22/72, Letter to Packard from Senator Stuart Symington asking for a copy of Packard’s speech at the Federal City Club

 

 

Box 3, Folder 21 – General Speeches

 

March 24, 1972, Our New Foreign Policy for a Generation of Peace, San Jose Chamber of Commerce, San Jose CA

 

3/24/72,  Typewritten text of Packard’s speech with some handwritten notations by him

 

Contrasting San Jose, where “economic and social change can be measured over a fairly short period of time,” Packard feels, as far as foreign policy goes, “we are at an historical vantage point – an illuminated intersection from which we can look both backward and forward.”

 

Packard explains that, even though he was in the Defense Department “my job, in addition to being involved in the day-to-day management problems [of the Defense Department], was to plan for the military forces required for the future. American military forces have two responsibilities. First, they must provide for the security and safety of our country, and this includes the important function of our strategic nuclear forces. Second, they must support American foreign policy and American interests around the world.”

 

Packard says he spent nearly half his time in Washington helping to develop the President’s “exciting” new foreign policy.

 

Taking a backward look at American foreign policy from World War II to the beginning of 1969 Packard says that “By 1968 the traumatic condition of our country – violence in our universities, bitter dissent throughout society, and uncontrolled inflation – was to a very large degree testimony to the underlying failure of American foreign policy in the decade of the 1960s. That policy which had served us and the world so well from 1947 until 1960 was continued in the following decade and had nearly destroyed the country by 1969.”

 

Packard says that President Nixon, who took office in 1969, found it essential to find a new path. “The developments during the three years I was in Washington have provided our country with a new path – a path which will lead us from an era of Confrontation to an era of Negotiation: a path which, as President Nixon has said, will lead the world to a full generation of peace.”

 

Packard describes the “Theory of Containment” designed to hold back Communist Aggression. This was implemented via “The Truman Doctrine” and, in 1947, helped “preserve the governments of Greece and Turkey against the assaults of Communist-led or Communist-inspired revolutionaries.”

 

Packard also tells how the theory “was applied against North Korea and Communist China, between 1950 and 1954, with the help of the United Nations. It produced such alliance systems as NATO in Western Europe, SEATO in southeast Asia and CENTO in the Middle East. The policy of containment reached a peak of drama and danger during the Cuban missile crisis of 1962. This was a confrontation in the most deadly sense and only because we had a great superiority of strategic nuclear weapons did the Soviets back down.

 

“In the early stages of the post-war period, America had the resources to be the dominant military and economic power in the world. In 1950 the U.S. had 40% of the world’s GNP,  produced 76% of the world’s motor vehicles and 48% of the world’s steel….This dominant economic position enabled us to support in the 1950’s a defense establishment adequate to protect the entire free world.

 

“Prior to Korea we spent 5.6% of our GNP on defense. In perspective, this was too little, for the North Koreans misjudged our will and attacked the South. For this error in judgment about the need for strength in world affairs, we paid dearly. We had to commit men and resources to Korea, which in addition to the tragic human toll, brought our defense budget up to 13% of our GNP Along with the massive foreign aid we were providing, the cost of the war began to draw down our economic strength.

 

“By 1960 there had been a considerable stabilization in most areas where interests of the free world were involved. Most of our friends and allies, including former enemies, had largely recovered from the devastation of World War II and were in fact competing with America for world markets and economic gains.

 

“At the same time our continued outlays for defense and foreign aid were beginning to be a serious drain on our economy. The drain continued to increase – statistics tell this story more dramatically than could any amount of rhetoric. Let’s look at a couple of key industries. In 1950, we produced 76 percent of motor vehicles; in 1970, 31 percent. In 1950 we produced 46 percent of the world’s steel, in 1970, 20 percent. As recently as 1967 we produced more steel than the total European community. Today we produce less steel than Europe and less than the Soviet Union….We had simply given away so much and spent so much on defense that we were nearly bankrupt.”

 

“This overall deterioration of our world economic standing was felt, naturally enough, in our international trade position. In the early 1960’s we maintained a trade surplus of more than $5 billion annually. By 1968 the surplus was down to $1 billion….”

 

“As I joined Mel Laird in the Defense Department in January of 1969, our most important job was to help develop a new course which would bring our commitments in line with our resources, both domestically and internationally. World-wide military commitments had placed an unacceptable demand on our resources. And these had to be brought in line with our real national interests. Domestic problems needed a larger share of federal resources and, in a very real sense a reorientation of this country’s priorities was of the highest urgency.”

 

“I had the good fortune to be personally involved in the studies which were undertaken to assess what changes might be appropriate. This assessment considered what federal resources were likely to be available for all of our national goals, and how these resources might appropriately be reallocated between defense and the nation’s other priorities”

Packard describes “The Nixon Doctrine” which emerged from the study of national priorities: “First, the President said we will maintain a nuclear deterrent adequate to meet any threat to the security of the United States or to our allies.”

 

“The President also said that we will help other nations develop the capability of defending themselves. This simply says that in the future we will not take the full responsibility for the security of all our friends around the world. They should take a larger share of this load. The President also said we will honor all of our treaty commitments; we will act to defend our interests whenever or wherever they are threatened – but where our interests are not involved, our role will be limited. We will not intervene militarily.

 

“The cornerstones of the Nixon doctrine in foreign policy are negotiation, partnership and strength.”

 

To illustrate the progress made in negotiation Packard points to agreements with the Soviet Union on Berlin, germ warfare, and the prohibition of nuclear weapons on seabeds.  He adds that negotiations are taking place in the Middle East and in Indochina.

 

“Partnership is vital to the Nixon Doctrine because, as we call upon our allies to bear a larger share of the common defense, we must naturally expect them to want a larger voice in formulating  policy.

 

The most important pillar of the Nixon Doctrine, Packard says, is strength. Important, he says,  because a nation can only negotiate successfully and keep strong partners from a position of strength. Without military strength our enemies would hold us in contempt and our allies would desert us.”

 

Packard describes how they used the principles of the Nixon Doctrine to develop military force planning and prepared the defense budgets. “These budgets were prepared to provide forces to support the President’s new foreign policy – to assure that our nuclear forces were adequate for the security and safety of our country and our conventional forces were adequate to support the President’s new foreign policy.”

 

Packard outlines how  the military forces have been changed since 1968. “In 1968 our defense forces included 3.5 million military personnel and 1.3 million civilians. In 1972, we had reduced these forces to 2.4 military personnel and1.0 million civilians.

 

“At the same time that we were making these personnel cuts, we were also moving towards an inherently more expensive all-volunteer armed forces. As a result, the overall military pay bill has gone up even as forces have been reduced.”

 

“In 1968 a 3.5 million man force cost $20 billion for pay and personnel costs; in 1972, a 2.4 million man force is costing nearly $24 billion.

 

“As we addressed the problems of the future with lower levels of manpower, we reached the obvious conclusion. America cannot afford to gamble on the future with lower military force levels and also inferior weapons. We accordingly requested and obtained a higher R&D budget in 1972. R&D was about $7 billion in 1971; it will be $7.7 billion in 1972; and we have requested $8.5 billion for fiscal year 1973.”

 

Packard compares trends in spending, looking at defense vs. other areas:  “In the period 1964-1968 defense increased $27 billion, other federal spending increased $34 billion, and state and local, $33 billion. In the period 1969-1973, expressed in constant dollars, defense declined $32 billion; other federal spending increased $35 billion; and state and local spending increased $43 billion.”

 

Packard also gives some figures on the effect of Defense Department budget reductions on the overall economy. “In 1968 Defense took 9.5 percent of this nation’s GNP. The 1973 budget will take only 6.5 percent – the lowest drain on the economy in twenty years….The GNP should grow to 1 trillion 200 billion next year at the end of fiscal 1973. In these terms the reductions that have been made will be a drain on our resources of 36 billion dollars less in 1973 than in 1968. This is the real measure of the substantial reduction that has been made.”

 

Packard says he understands these reductions have had a serious impact on the economy of many sections of the country, including Santa Clara County. He tells his audience, however, that the downtrend is over and expenses will be level to slightly rising in the future. He says he is “convinced the actions we have taken will be positive and beneficial to America and the world – and also Santa Clara County – in the long run.

 

[At this point the text refers to an “optional” McGovern insert.] This insert reads as follows:

 

“Let me say parenthetically this is assuming the President is re-elected. If McGovern should happen to be elected, the economic problems you have experienced here in the last three years would seem mild indeed. He proposed to reduce the defense budget by $30 billion,. That would cost the defense industry three million jobs, twice the reduction there has been here since 1969. His proposed defense forces would also leave this country wide open to a nuclear attack by the Soviets.”

 

Continuing with the regular text, Packard says “In conclusion, I would like to say that the past three years I have spent in Washington have been an exciting experience; for the insights I have gained into how the process of government functions at the highest level, but much more important, for the chance I have had to watch the activity of a great man, Richard Nixon, and the way in which he has taken hold of the helm of our nation at a crucial time and guided us through the turbulence of a basic reorientation of our national objectives. When historians view our period three or four decades down the road, it is my firm conviction that the past three years will be viewed as a turning point in our nation’s history.”

 

2/9/72, Letter to Packard from Fred La Cosse, inviting him to speak to the Chamber of Commerce luncheon on Mar. 24.

2/23/72, Copy of letter to Fred La Cosse from Packard accepting the invitation.

2/29/72, Letter to Packard from Fred La Cosse acknowledging Packard’s acceptance and saying that agenda details will be forthcoming.

3/25/72, Clipping from the San Jose Mercury Newspaper covering Packard’s speech. The headline reads “Packard Blisters Demo Candidates” and includes some comments that were not in the text of his speech. “a proposal by McGovern would take $30 billion out of the defense budget. This would scrap the ABM, cancel the F-111, and halt the MIRV program.” After quoting further from Packard’s speech, the article concludes “His hour-long speech was neither interrupted by applause nor protesters who have plagued him at three prior Bay Area appearances.”

3/27/72, Copy of letter from Packard to Fred La Crosse [sic], saying it was a pleasure to speak before the San Jose Chamber of Commerce and thanking him for the service award certificate and cuff links.

3/27/72, Letter from Fred La Cosse to Packard saying the Chamber of Commerce appreciated Packard’s speech – which “was informative and a delight to hear.”

 

 

Box 3, Folder 22 – General Speeches

 

March 31, 1972, National Defense in the New American Foreign Policy, Commonwealth Club of California, San Francisco CA

 

3/31/72, Text of Packard’s speech

 

Packard explains why he, a former member of the Defense Department, is going to talk about foreign policy. “American military forces have two important functions to perform. First, they must provide for the security and safety of our country and its people. Second, they must be adequate to support American foreign policy and protect American interests around the world.

 

“It is in this second category that the Defense Department must be closely involved with American foreign policy. I estimate that I spent nearly half of my time in Washington in discussions relating to the development of the President’s exciting new foreign policy and its impact on future military force requirements. That is what I want to tell you about today , for there has been a major change in American foreign policy since 1969.”

 

Packard says 1968 was the end of the post-war era and the beginning of a new era. The post-war era brought the United Nations as well as the expansionary aims of the Soviet Union. Confrontation began with the Truman Doctrine, Greece and Turkey, NATO, CENTO in the Middle East, and SEATO in Southeast Asia. Korea came in the mid-1950s.

 

“In the early years of this era of confrontation , America had the resources to be the dominant military power and the dominant economic power in the world. We were able to support through the decade of the 1950 a defense establishment adequate to protect the entire free world We were able to provide economic aid for Europe, Japan, and most of the developing countries of the world.”

 

“We began the decade of the 1950s with 50 percent of the world’s monetary reserves. We produced 76 percent of the world’s motor vehicles, 46 percent of the world’s steel, nearly all of the world’s sophisticated electronic equipment, and we produced a vast surplus of food.”

 

“As President Kennedy took office in 1961 there were signs that our economy was being overtaxed and that we were carrying a disproportionate share of the burden of the free world. Yet, he boldly stated, ‘We shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty.’ The course was set to continue the policy of confrontation into the decade of the 1960s. Indeed, the confrontation intensified – the Berlin wall, the Cuban missile crisis, and then Vietnam.

 

“By 1968, the pressures generated to a large degree by our foreign policy had created an intolerable strain on all segments of our society. There was rioting and burning in the streets, our great Universities were in shambles, inflation was rampant. Our international monetary reserves had shrunk from 50 percent to 16 percent of the world’s total. We had 549,000 men and women in Vietnam, and no plan to bring them home short of unconditional surrender to the North Vietnamese communists.”

 

While agreeing that “It would have taken a wise man and a strong man indeed to have led America on a different course in 1961….Nevertheless, the fact remains that the disastrous situation America faced in 1968 was to a very large degree caused by the failure of our foreign policy in the decade of the 1960s. The foreign policy-defense picture was not rosy as I joined President Nixon’s administration in the spring of 1969.”

 

“One of my first assignments in Washington was to chair a joint study group to prepare…an evaluation of the options available to reset the course of American foreign policy for the decade of the 1970s and beyond.”

 

Packard says this study group approached the problem from the stanPackardoint of – “what military capability would be required to support various foreign policy options and what military capability could we provide if larger shares of federal resources were allocated to the domestic needs of the country.”

 

“It was clear to all that our country needed a new foreign policy, but it was equally clear to those of us who were examining the alternatives in detail that the extremes of an arms build-up or unilateral disarmament would not do. The course adopted – and enunciated by the President in Guam in 1969 – was a shifting in the philosophy of our foreign policy from a policy based on confrontation to a policy based on negotiation. No longer would we assume the overwhelming responsibility we had born in the previous two and-one-half decades. No longer would we pay any price and bear any burden to assure the survival and success of liberty anywhere in the world.

 

“On the other hand, we did not intend to withdraw from the world. We were not going to withdraw from the important responsibilities and contributions we could make as a great world power. In sum, we were going to tailor our commitments to our real interests and limit our commitments to those we could realistically support within our resources.”

 

“This new foreign policy boils down to two important elements. First, it requires our friends and allies around the world to carry a larger share of the burden for their security – both in monetary cost and in manpower. Second, it proposes that we attempt, through negotiation, to reduce the points of friction and reduce the possibility of confrontation which might lead to war in the future.”

 

Packard says the new foreign policy requires, “while abjuring the principle of nuclear supremacy, we insist on ‘assured deterrence.’ He says by that we mean “a nuclear force adequate to deter nuclear war under all possible conditions. We do today have assured deterrence, but only because we went ahead with the MIRV program. Incidentally, I should point out that this program was opposed while I was in Washington by Senators Humphrey, McGovern, Muskie, Kennedy, and by other liberals in the Senate. And if this opposition had prevailed we would not today have a ‘strategic sufficiency.’

 

On the subject of conventional forces Packard says “…the Nixon Doctrine permits us to handle the military requirements of our national interest with a smaller conventional force than we have maintained in the past, in terms of the specific problems in specific areas of the world.

 

“The most obvious example of this facet of the Nixon doctrine is Vietnam. In 1968 we had over 540,000 troops in Vietnam, were spending nearly $30 billion per year, and had no intelligent plan for the withdrawal of American forces from that theater. Today our troop level is under 100,000, we are spending less than $10 billion per year, and we are well along in an intelligently planned program for withdrawal. And yet, despite this enormous cutback in our military commitment we are leaving the people of South Vietnam with a very strong capability of defending their country from the communist invaders as long as they have the will to do so.

 

“Throughout Asia our ability to maintain peace with fewer conventional military forces has been engaged by the opening up of relations with the People’s Republic of China. To be sure, Washington-Peking conversations offer no guarantee that North Vietnam and North Korea and insurgency movements elsewhere will all of a sudden turn into lambs. But our new relations with the Chinese do make realistic the expectation that we need not become embroiled in a land war with Chinese troops: a development which clearly would place severe strains, perhaps unacceptable strains, on our great resources and on our society.

 

“The Middle East is another trouble spot where, with the judicious use of a minimal amount of American military presence we are achieving very significant results. Where once full-scale fighting raged, now we see the possibility of serious negotiations.”

 

“ I should point out here that two of President Nixon’s highly criticized foreign policy actions – namely, America’s support of Pakistan in the Indo-Pakistan war, and our continued working relations with the Greek government – have both contributed significantly to American ability to maintain peace in the Middle East. The support of Pakistan enhanced our credibility with the Arab countries, and continued good relations with Greece are absolutely essential if we are to be able to operate our sixth fleet in the Eastern Mediterranean. There is irony in the fact that some of the most vociferous opponents of our support for Pakistan and Greece are also some of the most vociferous pro-Israeli voices in the country.”

 

“Beginning in 1969 we made substantial reductions in procurement, and leveled off R and D expenditures. These reductions were possible because of our Vietnamization program and because we could begin to move toward lower force levels as we began to implement the president’s new foreign policy.
“I am happy to report that the impact of Defense reductions on the economy has now leveled out. From now on there will be some increases, particularly in research and development….These increases were made on the basic proposition that, while the security of America and our new foreign policy can be supported with lower force levels, they cannot be supported with inferior weapons.

 

“One area of expenditure in which costs have gone up sharply bears special mention: namely the cost of military personnel. The FY 1973 Defense Budget, which was submitted to the congress in January, provides for 2.4 million military personnel and 1.0 million civilians. This is down from 3.5 million military personnel, and 1.3 million civilians in FY 1968 – 1.4 million fewer people on the Defense payroll. This has been possible because we have withdrawn 450,000 people from Vietnam, and many thousands from other overseas areas – all because our friends and allies have been able to accept a larger share of the burden.

 

“As we have reduced the number of men and women in uniform, we have taken steps toward an all-volunteer Army. Among these steps is a correction of the gross inequality between what men in uniform and civilians in our society earn.”

 

Packard gives some examples of these pay changes: “In 1964 a first year recruit earned $78 per month. Starting January 1973, he will earn $332 per month – four times as much….A Colonel or Navy Captain earned just under a thousand dollars a month in 1964. In 1973 this will increase to over two thousand.”

 

“Despite the special costs associated with R and D and with the move to a volunteer Army, there has been a real and substantial reordering of the application  of federal resources in these past three years….The real impact is best expressed in purchasing power – in constant dollars. From the spring of 1969 to the fiscal 1973 budget, Defense cost in constant dollars has declined $32 billion, while other Federal spending has increased $35 billion, and at the same time State and Local spending has increased some $43 billion. Defense spending in the year beginning July 1, 1972 as a percentage of GNP will be at its lowest level in 10 years.

 

“There is no room for further reductions of substance in Defense spending. Those who propose further reductions of 10 – 15 – or 30 billion – and all of these figures have been mentioned – just do not understand what has happened in these past three years. Further reductions in the Defense Budget will commit America to withdraw from the world, to embark on a certain course to the status of a second rate world power in the decade of the 1980s – a course that America need not, cannot, take.”

 

Packard  says that in spite of all that has been done, there is no room for complacency. “ In the area of foreign affairs, there remains a great deal to be done. The initial steps we have taken to begin a dialog with the People’s Republic of China and to tie down some concrete points of agreement between the Soviet Union and ourselves must be carried forward. A solution to the foreign aid problem must be found: despite all the pitfalls, errors, and domestic disenchantment with foreign aid, our wealth, our humanitarian traditions, and our interest dictate that we have an active foreign assistance program. We need to finish the construction with our partners of a reformed trade and monetary system. And we must continue to build an international system – including a strong concern for the United Nations – which all members of the international community will work to preserve because they recognize their stake in its preservation.

 

“While I hope no one leaves this luncheon with a sense of complacency about our foreign policy achievements, I also hope no one leaves this luncheon without fully realizing the dramatic reorientation brought to our foreign policy by the Nixon administration. The continuing stream of criticism against the President’s foreign policy – much of it the result of political self-interest; much of it the result of plain old narrow-minded isolationism – has all too often dominated the media. It is critically important that an influential a group such as the Commonwealth Club understand that what has been accomplished during the past three years represents the most fundamental change in American foreign policy in two-and-one-half decades. It is the foundation for a new era in our foreign policy. While we cannot predict the infinite and intricate variations of this new foreign policy during the next decades, I am convinced that the Nixon Doctrine will remain the guiding concept until the end of this century.

 

“In conclusion, I submit to you that during the last three years we have lived through an epoch-making formative period, equivalent in importance to the period between the end of World War II and our entry into the Korean War. I am proud to have been associated, in however small measure, with this momentous endeavor, and I am proud that you invited me here today to share some of my thoughts and my concerns with you. Thank you.”

 

3/31/72,  Reference numbers Packard had written for himself

3/13/72, Letter to Packard from Durward Riggs, Executive Secretary, Commonwealth Club of California, saying he is pleased Packard has accepted the date to speak to the Club. Some background data is attached

3/21/72, Letter to Packard from J. K. Gustafson, Chairman of the Board, Homestake Mining Company, complimenting him on his speech.

3/27/72, Copy of the Club publication

4/3/72,  Letter to Packard from Durward Riggs, thanking for speaking to their group. He comments “I’m sure that the heart of any speaker would have been warmed by the response you elicited from your audience.”

 

 

Box 3, Folder 23 – General Speeches

 

April 6, 1972, Interracial Council for Business Opportunity, New York, NY

 

4/6/72, Typewritten text of Packard’s comments, with handwritten notations by him. Packard acted as Co-Chairman, introducing other speakers and award presenters.

 

Packard says all in attendance have a common interest: “that is to do all that we can to help alleviate the problems faced by the minority groups within our society. This is an interest of long –standing for me personally, and I hope that it is reflected to some degree by the efforts we have made in a number of communities around the country where Hewlett-Packard plants are located, and by some of the things we were able to do in the Department of Defense were I spent my last three years.

 

“When Secretary and I joined the Department in 1969, both of us resolved that the Department had the responsibility to utilize its resources and people to help with the problems of the minoriti3es both within and outside of the armed forces. Because we felt strongly about this, we initiated a number of Department programs and activities designed to contribute to the improvement of society, particularly the disadvantaged.”

 

Packard tells of some of the programs the DOD initiated: in 1971 they hired 46,000 young people, 76% of whom were disadvantaged; they asked every military base in the country to use their resources to support educational, recreational and cultural programs for disadvantaged youths He says, “Over 2.4 million young people participated in these programs in 1971, as compared with 250,000 in 1969.

 

“We set up a school to train officers to better understand the problems faced by minorities within the Armed Services. We made it clear that we expected an atmosphere of true equal opportunity for all of the servicemen and women in the armed forces, as will as the civilians within the department.”

 

“ I was very pleased by the response of Military leaders from the Joint Chiefs on down. They are well aware of their responsibilities in this area.

 

“I believe that a great many people, in both the public and private sectors, have contributed to the progress that has been made in solving the problems of the minorities.”

 

Packard says he is “pleased to Secretary Stans here tonight,” adding that he “was a great leader in a number of activities to improve economic opportunities for minorities before he joined President Nixon’s administration in Washington in 1969.”

 

The private sector “has an important and a continuing role. I am delighted to see you are here tonight – because I know it means you – as representatives of a large portion of the private sector – share my interest and concern for solving these problems, and because I know that it is an indication of your continuing support of the Interracial Council for Business Opportunity.”

 

Packard then introduces Mr. William R. Hudgins “who will present the first award tonight.” In his introductory comments Packard describes Hudgins as the “man who has served as the National Co-Chairman of the Interracial Council for Business Opportunity for the past three years, and who is President of the Harlem-based Freedom National of New York – the largest black-owned banking institution in the country.”

 

After Mr. Hudgins’ comments, Packard introduces the next speaker – Mr. Darwin W. Bolden. He describes Mr. Bolden as “the National Executive Director of the Interracial Council for Business Opportunity, and a member of President Nixon’s Advisory Committee on Minority enterprise.”

 

To make the second award of the evening, Packard introduces Mr. Rodman C. Rockefeller, “President of the International Basic Economy Corporation – a private sector development company which initiates and operates corporate ventures responsive to basic human needs and the economies of developing nations.” He says Rockefeller has been a Co-Chairman of ICBO since its inception in 1963.

 

4/3/72, Letter to Packard from Edith Ross, Dinner Coordinator, enclosing biographical material o William Hudgins, Maurice Stans, Darwin Bolden and Rodman Rockefeller, asking that he introduce these people. Biographical material on Leonard Evans, Jr. also Co-Chairman for the dinner is also attached

4/6/72, Printed program for the ICBO Ninth Annual Dinner Program

4/6/72, List of guests at the dinner and list of  “prospects”

7/1/69,  Six page history of the ICBO

12/16/71, Letter to Packard from William R. Hudgins, Rodman C. Rockefeller, and Darwin W. Bolden asking Packard to be the Co-Chairman at their Ninth Annual National ICBO Dinner. Background material on the ICBO is enclosed, as well as a copy of a letter to Packard from Mr. Rockefeller dated Sept. 18, 1969 asking Packard to be the speaker at the ICBO Major Industries luncheon on October 15, 1969. {There is no indication in the file of speeches made by Packard that he accepted this invitation]

12/21/71, Letter to Packard from Rodman C. Rockefeller saying that he has been involved with the ICBO since its inception, and expressing the hope that Packard will accept the invitation to be Co-Chair at their dinner

1/5/72, Copy of a letter to Rodman Rockefeller form Packard accepting the invitation to be Co-Chair at the ICBO dinner

1/12/72, Letter to Packard from Darwin W. Bolden thanking him for agreeing to be Co-Chair at the dinner and enclosing a draft of a letter they wish to send over the signature of Packard and the other Co-Chair, Leonard Evans, Jr., to various company people.

Letter to Packard from Rodman Rockefeller saying he is delighted he has accepted the invitation to be Co-Chair

1/19/72, Copy of a letter from Packard to Darwin W. Bolden saying the draft is satisfactory to him

2/15/72, Letter to Packard from Edith Ross asking for a photograph of Packard and a biographical sketch

2/23/72, Copy of a letter to Edith Ross from David Kirby enclosing  the requested photo and biographical material

3/13/72, Letter to Packard from Edith Ross saying they have sold only 214 tickets to the dinner and hope to sell 1500 more. She asks Packard’s help in sending out more personal letters

3/20/72, Copy of the “personal letter” Packard sent to people in industry, and the list of people who received it

3/21/72, Letter to Packard from Harold Wheeler, Chairman of the Board, Hazeltine Corp., declining the invitation

March, 1972, Copy of a  sample letter from the ICBO Dinner Committee sending tickets to those having purchased them

4/5/72, Letter to Packard from Gordon Metcalf, Chairman of the Board, Sears, Roebuck and Co., saying ICBO is not on the list of organizations Sears will be able to help

4/6/72, Letter to Packard from W. W. Morison, President, Foremost-McKesson, Inc., sending regrets.

4/11/72, Letter to Packard from Darwin Bolden, extending appreciation for Packard’s participation at the ICBO dinner and expressing the hope that Packard will be able to help in the future

4/18/72, Letter to Packard from Rodman C. Rockefeller expressing appreciation for Packard’s participation .

 

 

Box 3, Folder 24 – General Speeches

 

April 8, 1972, California Republican Assembly, Palo Alto, CA

 

4/8/72, Typewritten text of Packard’s speech with handwritten notations by him.

 

Saying that he has just returned from a three year tour in Washington, Packard calls these “the most interesting years of my life.” He admits “they were not the most enjoyable by any means, for among other things Washington is a rough, often mean and vicious league.”

 

“Throughout my three years in Washington, time and time again I say examples of irresponsible behavior – irresponsible behavior with the gravest implications.

 

“I heard scientists use their reputations gained in unrelated fields to influence legislation to stultify national defense programs  – particularly the all-important strategic nuclear programs upon which the security of our country depends.

 

“I heard distinguished newsmen favor Hanoi, Moscow, and New Delhi over America in their reporting.”

 

Packard is particularly disturbed by criticism of the military which he sees “in the press, on TV, in many of our liberal universities, and even by some elected public officials – who, of all people, should know better,” He says, “I can understand disillusionment with Vietnam policy going back to 1966 or so, but the military does not deserve the criticism. The policy was dictated and directed by Administration civilians. Particularly disturbing has been the manner in which some members of Congress, particularly in the Senate, took great delight in seizing on any fact or figure which could be used – usually magnified, distorted, and out of context – to discredit the military and all those who supported the Defense Department.”

 

In spite of these experiences Packard says he found many “inspiring experiences,” particularly coming from his work with the military.

 

“You cannot help but be very impressed with the great dedication of all of the men and women in uniform – and with the way they function with military discipline.” He is also complimentary of Dr. Henry Kissinger. “We in Defense worked closely with Dr. Kissinger, and I can tell you that all the talk about Dr. Kissinger’s being some sort of a tyrant is inaccurate. The study groups he chaired were open to all kinds of input. Every relevant department, including State, had ample opportunity to contribute. No one was reticent about expressing his personal opinion.”

 

Packard calls Melvin Laird “an outstanding colleague,” and says working with President Nixon was “an exceptional experience.”

 

“…in 1968 a man able to act with both calmness and courage was exactly what this country needed. There was rioting and burning in the streets, our great universities were in shambles, inflation was rampant, and we had 549,000 men and women embroiled in a seemingly endless war in Vietnam.

 

“There was clearly a pressing need for a new foreign policy, and so in the spring of 1969 we began to reevaluate our system of worldwide commitments. After much analysis and evaluation of options, a new foreign policy began to evolve, and it boils down to three important elements. First, it requires our friends and allies around the world to carry a larger share of the burden for their security – both in monetary cost and in manpower. Second, it proposes that we attempt, through negotiation, to reduce the points of friction and reduce the possibility of confrontation. Third, it demands we remain strong, since only from strength is it possible to have useful negotiations with Communists. These pillars form the core of the Nixon doctrine.”

 

Packard looks at “burden sharing,” saying “America has been carrying too large a share of the free world’s burdens for too long.

 

“For example, the United States spent in 1968 9.5% of its gross national products on defense; West Germany 2.9%; Japan less that 1%.

 

“Such disproportion may have been appropriate when the United States had the overwhelming economic power that it did immediately following world War II. But the situation has changed drastically. The best indicator is that in 1950, we held 50% of the international monetary reserves; in 1970, only 16%.”

 

Packard looks at the cuts which have been made in the military budget over the past three years. “Naturally, these cuts created short-term hardships in some sections of the country, and the President was always aware of these problems. But cuts in procurement have now leveled off, and I would like to ask if anyone in this room imagines that Mr. Humphrey, if elected in 1968, would have shown nearly the concern for adequate defense spending that this Administration has shown. Let me ask you if you think any of the likely Democratic candidates in 1972, Humphrey, McGovern, Muskie or Kennedy would support adequate defense spending during the next four years.”

 

Packard looks next at “Negotiation,”  the second pillar of the Nixon doctrine. “Let me make clear that negotiation is not a codeword for capitulation. It does not suppose that all communist states have metamorphosed into lambs. Clearly, communism is still fundamentally an aggressive movement and must be treated accordingly.

 

“But the fact is that dramatic changes in the structure of world politics have taken place recently and that these changes permit us, in deed require us, to approach the international area with greater flexibility. We no longer live in a bipolar world.”

 

Citing the “remarkable” economic progress of the free world, and the Sino-soviet split, he says a “greater flexibility in world politics” has created “more opportunities for negotiation. Negotiation seeks to…minimize the possibility of nuclear war. It does not, however, pretend that freedom and Communism are not still basically opposing forces.”

 

Packard then tu4ns to the matter of “military strength.” He asks, “How do we measure military strength? I mentioned to you earlier that our defense expenditures have gone down.” He says this does not mean military effectiveness has gone down as well. Superior, more effective weapons are the answer and he gives an example where “smart bombs were able destroy a target with 20 sorties and $600,000, versus 1,000 sorties and $15 million in expense for conventional bombs.

 

Packard says, “There are areas where reduction is not acceptable, particularly with strategic weapons. So when Secretary Laird and I moved into office, we immediately began extensive studies to see what new systems might be necessary to insure that our strategic nuclear forces sill provide an adequate nuclear deterrent – not only for today, but also into the foreseeable future.”

 

“One very important specific program we moved forward in MIRV (Multiple Independent Reentry Vehicle). The purpose of MIRV in our Minutemen forces is to offset the Soviet’s increasing stock of land-based weapons, and in the Poseidon program, to offset the recent rapid growth of the Soviet submarine forces. MIRV, incidentally, was opposed by Senators Humphrey, McGovern, Muskie, and Kennedy, among other senate liberals.

“The ABM is another program for which President Nixon fought valiantly against his Congressional critics, and I trust I need not spell out for you the significance of this program. The politics of this fight is interesting, and I would like to share one sidelight with you. Senator Humphrey is now saying that he supported the ABM, but, if so, it is news to me. I recall an official dinner one evening in the spring of 1969 when he was the featured speaker. I happened to be at the some table with the Soviet Ambassador, Mr. Dobrynin. Mr. Humphrey was roasting the ABM program royally, and Mr. Dobrynin was enjoying it greatly, smiling broadly throughout the whole show.”

 

“The Nixon Administration has also been moving head on conventional forces. The F 15, the AX, the F 14, the Harrier and the Agile missile – all important developments we supported and accelerated – will provide greatly improved air power for our Air force, Navy and Marines. We increased the Navy shipbuilding budget by some $2 billion, which increases the production of nuclear attack submarines, modern destroyers and frigates. We have two nuclear carriers under construction and have requested funds for the third in the FY-1973 budget.”

 

“Our forces have much greater and more effective fire power today, and I know of no attractive research and development program that is not adequately provided for in the FY 1973 budget.”

 

“Military pay scales have been dramatically upgrades – providing a long overdue correction to the gross inequality of pay between men in the military services and those in the civil service.”

 

“And research and development has been increased. We increased it from $7 billion in 1971 to $7.7 billion this year, and we requested $8.5 billion for fiscal 1973.”

 

“We can afford lower conventional force levels because our friends and allies are carrying a larger share of the burden of their own defense. We have a dramatic example in Vietnam today – the South Vietnamese are defending their own country and they have the capability of doing so if the have the will. You can be mighty thankful those are not American boys fighting on the ground tonight in Vietnam on the DMZ [Demilitarized Zone].

 

“The President has reduced our worldwide interests. He has said we will honor our treaty commitment, but that does not require that we provide American ground forces in every case.

 

“Naturally, with all the recent banner headlines about North Vietnamese offensives, I cannot stand up here and offer complacent generalizations about the situation in Vietnam. Nor can I guarantee you that the South Vietnamese will-t0-win, something no foreign power can instill, will bring victory after victory. But I can say that the Nixon Administration has taken and is taking all necessary steps to provide South Vietnam with the equipment and training necessary for the defense of that country. I say that is discharging our obligation to the people of South Vietnam.

 

“Elsewhere in Asia our ability to maintain peace with fewer conventional military forces will be, we believe, enhances by the opening up of relations with the People’s Republic of China. To be sure, Washington-Peking conversations offer n9o guarantee that China, North Korea, North Vietnam, or any of the indigenous communist movements. Will turn their swords into plowshares. But our new relations with the Chinese do make realistic the expectation that we need not become embroiled in a land war with Chinese troops.

 

“The Middle East is another trouble spot where, with the judicious use of a minimal amount of military force, we have seen some encouraging programs. Where once full-scale fighting raged, now we see negotiations being pursued with strong hopes of continuing the current cease-fire and moderately good hopes of bringing some sort of long-term accommodation between Jews and Arabs.

 

“On a closing note, I would like to come right out and make some political statements, just in case you feel up to now I have been too apolitical. I have watched with interest the development of the Democratic primary, and I was particularly interested, as I am sure we all were, by the results of the Wisconsin race. The one Democratic candidate whose position on defense and national security issues was realistic seems to have been knocked out of the race. And, at the other end of the spectrum, the democratic candidate whose views on national defense are clearly the most irresponsible – he would start out by cutting $30 billion from the defense budget – received a dramatic boost. What once seemed unthinkable, that this candidate actually has a serious chance to take command of our armed services and our strategic arsenal, is now very far from unthinkable.

 

“It is becoming increasingly evident that the gulf between the Republicans and the democrats on national security is perilously large. The need for active volunteer Republican organizations has, therefore, become a national imperative. If ever there was any doubt that organizations such as the California Republican Assembly are vital to the security of our country, it is now dispelled. I am working to re-elect the President because I have full confidence in him. For three years he gave Secretary Laird and me complete support on every issue involving our national security. We have absolutely no possibility of a stronger, more capable man at the head of this great nation of ours than Richard Nixon. Let’s keep him there.”

 

4/8/72, Typed, single-spaced copy of Packard’s speech

4/8/72, Typed draft of Packard’s speech. Appears to have been given to someone other than Packard for comment. Some handwritten notations by Packard and by another person are evident as well

1/24/72, Letter to Packard from Allyn c. Miller inviting him to speak at the California Republican Assemble State Convention in Palo Alto on April 8, 1972

2/2/72, Letter to Packard from Hugh S. Koford, of the CRA. Confirming the arrangements

3/7/72, Copy of letter to E. A. Herron [of CRA it would appear], from Max Larsen of North American Rockwell, discussing the need to avoid duplication of Packard’s comments and those of Bob Anderson from Rockwell

3/14/72, Letter to Packard from E. A. Herron, giving Packard the gist of Bob Anderson’s remarks

3/27/72, Letter to Packard from Hugh S. Koford giving details of the luncheon

4/11/72, Letter to Packard from Hugh S. Koford expressing appreciation for Packard’s participation and forbearance in the face of program difficulties

 

 

 

Box 3, Folder 25 – General speeches

 

April 12, 1972, Accepting the Business Statesman Award, Harvard Business School Club, New York, NY

 

4/12/72, Typewritten text of Packard’s speech, with extensive handwritten additions by him

 

Packard says it was a “great experience to spend three years with President Nixon’s Administration in Washington” He speaks of frustrations and hard work, but says they got some things done – “even some important changes….” He points to one big difference from the business world – no profit and loss statement to test decisions. “Whether some of the things Mel Laird and I were able to do in the Defense department will result in real improvement – and even if so whether they will last – only time will tell.”

 

Packard says his job in the Defense Department had two facets. “One was to work on the management problems of the Pentagon – and I say that advisedly – I don’t believe anyone can manage the Pentagon.”

 

“he other facet of my job there was to work with the State Department and Dr. Kissinger’s staff for the National Security Council on many very interesting and important international issues – Vietnam, NATO, the Middle East, south Asia – and of course, the most important issue of all, strategic nuclear arms.

 

“Our strategic nuclear policy is the most important defense issue, for unless our country maintains strategic nuclear forces and a strategic nuclear policy adequate to absolutely deter nuclear war – not only for today but forever – none of the other issues will matter very much. We have adequate forces today – we will have adequate strategic nuclear forces in the future – regardless of the outcome of the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks with the Soviets – if the programs we have requested in the fiscal 1973 budget are approved.

 

“President Nixon’s leadership in foreign policy has been the most enlightened and the most important America has had for may decades. Indeed, in the first three years of this administration he has moved our country’s foreign policy from one which had nearly bankrupted our economy and destroyed our society by 1968, to one that holds not only the hope – but the real promise – of a generation of peace.”

 

Packard describes “some interesting management problems in the Pentagon….With some 3.5 million people on the payroll and a budget that calls for spending $200 million a day, 365 days a year, it is a credit to the thousands of capable men and women – in uniform and civilians – that the department runs as well as it does.”

 

Packard says he was “greatly impressed with the dedicated and capable people in the department of defense – both military and civilian….I often thought as I worked with the people in the Defense Department – and the Military Services – I had as fine a team of dedicated, capable people as could be found in the private business world.”

 

Packard says “It would be great if every businessman could spend some time in Washington – at least once in a position of responsibility. One thing you would learn is that businessmen, and good business management practice alone cannot solve all of the complex problems of big government. At the same time, there are a great many areas where sound business management can, and does, contribute to better government.”

 

There is a great difference between the political world and the business world. One cannot be in Washington for long without learning that political skill is just as necessary – perhaps more necessary – than skill in business management to get something useful done. I had a great mentor while I was there in Mel Laird. He is a professional politician in the best sense of the word. He was, and is, highly respected by the congress as well as by his peers in the Administration. I can think of no one who could have done a better job as secretary of defense than Mel Laird has done during these turbulent three years I spent working with him. In fact, despite all the criticism of the defense department, since 1969 we were the only department that did not lose a major issue in the congress. A real tribute to Secretary Laird’s political skill.

 

“One thing troubles me greatly as a result of my experience in Washington. It is very difficult for the public to really know what the true situation is on any issue. Many times while I was there, an issue which I knew about was wrongly reported by the news media. Sometimes it was because fragmentary information from a leak was used. Sometimes it was poor communication from the Administration. Sometimes it appeared to e wantonly vicious reporting. It seldom did any good to try to correct the story later – the first release covered the news on the front page – a correction was among the want ads.” Packard says he doesn’t want to indite all reporters and commentators – “the vast majority are smart, dedicated and honest men and women. The only way to deal with the problem was to ignore it and get on with the job – by the time you worried about the case of today, there would be another one tomorrow anyway.”

 

Packard says that in spite of “the many trials and frustrations, I am glad that I was able to spend three years in Washington. I often thought I was at a great disadvantage for…I have neither the ambition nor temperment [sic] of a politician or a bureaucrat.

 

“I developed a great respect for the men and women in Washington – in the Congress, in the Administration, and in the thousands of offices that do the day to day work. When one measures what they do against the complex and important problems they face they deserve our respect and appreciation.

 

“And I want to thank you for the honor you have given me tonight. I appreciate your recognition, especially from this distinguished Club representing the management profession.

 

“Thank you very much.”

 

4/12/72, Printed program for The International dinner of The Harvard business School club of New York

1/18/72, Letter to Packard from Albert H. Gordon, chairman, Kidder, Peabody & Co., saying HBS members are delighted that Packard is willing to accept the Business Statesman Award

4/3/72, Letter to Packard from Albert Gordon going over details of the dinner

4/18/72, Letter to Packard from Albert Gordon thanking Packard for accepting the Award.

4/26/72, Copy of a letter from Packard to Albert Gordon saying he and Mrs. Packard enjoyed the dinner, and he thanks Gordon for the “beautiful Steuben Bowl…”

7/17/72, Letter to Packard from Albert Gordon enclosing a copy of the Harvard Business School International Dinner booklet.

7/28/72, Letter to Packard from Ray N. Peterson, enclosing a copy of the Harvard Bulletin which covers the Award Dinner.

7/28/72, Note from Carl Franklin also enclosing a copy of the HBS Bulletin

 

 

Box 3, Folder 26 – General Speeches

 

April 20, 1972, Republican Central committee, San Mateo, CA

 

4/20/72, Typewritten text of Packard’s speech

 

“I am pleased to be here tonight,” Packard says, “we have enthusiasm….we have unity….we are going to win this year….We have unity because of our commonly held principles. And the most basic of these is that individuals, not large organizations or blocks of special interests, are the great strength of our country.”

 

Packard says he is reminded of Herbert Hoover’s statement on the Uncommon Man and he reads a quote from this statement – which is to the effect that Hoover feels there has been too much talk about the common man – becoming almost a cult. Hoover says we need more uncommon men – an uncommon doctor when we are sick, an uncommon mechanic when our car breaks down….parents always want their children to be uncommon achievers.

 

Packard points to the growth of government: government forms to fill out, applying for permits, paying taxes, welfare, social security, Medicare, environmental controls. “There is no such thing as the Uncommon Man in this scheme of things – we are all rapidly becoming modern common men – each a number in a computer.”

 

“This all began,” Packard says, “under the Democratic Party – Franklin Roosevelt in the 1930s. It has grown over these past three decades through a patchwork of appeals to minority interests under the sponsorship of the Democratic Party, ….”

 

Packard refers to the “cantankerous” Democratic Congress and says it is “important…not  only to re-elect the President, but also to change some faces in the House and the Senate, too.”

 

“Look at the current fuss from the Democrats about ‘closing tax loopholes.’ While this sounds very nice, it boils down to just another plan to tax the individuals and companies who are the economic mainstay of this country. Of course, the Democrats invoke the sacred name of the ‘common man’ whenever they come through with these new tax schemes. But it’s a funny thing: the eloquent Democratic politicians never give this ‘common man’ the one thing he really wants; lower taxes. Quite the contrary, as a result of pressure from ultra-liberal Congressmen, tax rates for all Americans go up and up and up.”

 

Packard asks where all this increased tax revenue goes. And he answers by saying “a big hunk goes simply to keep up with the cost of inflation – inflation fueled by deficit government spending.” He adds wasted experimental programs, urban renewal, increases for social security and the “enormous” welfare system.

 

“Often the Democrats’ pet special-interest projects are not so politically appealing, and then more devious techniques need to be developed. One such is appointing judges who will use the courts to push special interest programs the Democrats could never hope to get through congress or a State legislature. An example of this arrogance is the California Supreme Court’s decision to eliminate local property taxes as the sole source of school revenues.

 

“Not only does this decision bring yet another redistribution of income whose morality is far from clear, it also raises the serious danger of increased control of local education by state bureaucrats. And it may set a precedence for statewide financing, and therefore control, of all our other public services.

 

“Or take the busing issue, where a string of Democrat-appointed judges have attempted, and on several cases succeeded, in ordering a drastic change in our whole educational system – and all without the benefit of a single law.

 

“President Nixon has taken a strong hand against this relentless pressure by the Democratic party to make everyone a common man. He has proposed revenue sharing – to give the people a more effective voice in how their money will be spent. The Democrats want to keep a tight control of your money in Washington. He has taken action on taxes to close loopholes of abuse, yet to encourage private incentive to economic progress. The Democrats are proposing a so-called ‘tax reform’ which, if enacted, would be virtually the final step from private enterprise to socialism in America.

 

“President Nixon has strongly supported opening  the doors of opportunity to the minority people – black capitalism, self help and personal encouragement and that is what these people want and deserve – a piece of the action. The Democrats would take care of them by raising the level of relief – by making them totally dependent on and therefore submissive to the Federal Government.  With the  hope, of course, that this will further insure their vote for the Democratic party.

 

“If the policies of the democratic party are pursued in the name of the common man, we will most certainly have more common men and women in America, more common black men and women – more common Chicanos – more common American Indians – all glorified with the honor of an immortal place in the memories of the computers in Washington.”

 

Packard says “Democrats have been going out of their way to exploit national defense issues for political gain. In the 1968 Presidential campaign, Nixon simply stated he had a plan to get us out of Vietnam with honor.

 

“By contrast , what do we hear today from the Democrats about the way President  Nixon is trying to phase out their war? We hear sharp attacks on both the conduct of the war and the strategy of Vietnamization. We hear attacks made solely for political gain. What statesmanlike motives, I ask you, led Senator Muskie to blast an Administration peace plan before even the North Vietnamese had responded to it?  What statesmanlike moves led the Senate Foreign Relations committee to vote this week to cut off all money for the protection of American troops in Vietnam by the end to this year? What statesmanlike thinking causes elected officials of this country to give more support and sympathy to Hanoi than to their own country?”

 

Regarding Vietnam Packard tells of two things he says Nixon’s plan does not include. “It does not include delivering the people of South Vietnam against their will to the Communists. It does not include crawling on our knees either out of Vietnam, nor crawling on our knees to the negotiating table.”

 

Packard says Nixon’s plan does include: stopping all fighting and withdrawing all American troops – followed by elections. He has agreed to assist in the “economic rehabilitation” of North Vietnam as well, Packard says. “I do not know how any American who wants to understand the situation could fail to support the President’s position on negotiation. Those who do not support the President’s position on negotiation are saying in effect that they want to sell the people of South Vietnam down the river to the Communists.”

 

Nixon’s second course, Packard explains, was to provide an alternative in case negotiations failed. “This is what is called ‘Vietnamization.’ – “The plan to help the South Vietnamese learn to defend themselves. The first phase of Vietnamization was building South Vietnam’s ground forces and accelerating pacification and economic development. That phase is now nearly completed and has been very successful. So successful that we will have 480,000 fewer men and women in Vietnam on May 1^st than we had on January 20, 1969 when President Nixon took office….If the programs Secretary Laird and I have established are supported by the Congress, the South Vietnamese will soon have adequate air capability as well as adequate ground capability to defend themselves.”

 

Packard mentions the recent North Vietnam offensive. He says “This new offensive was made possible because [the] Soviets supplied North Vietnam with heavy equipment, tanks, large field guns, heavy anti-aircraft equipment of the type needed to mount an invasion of the South.”

 

“There is one thing about this whole situation that never seems to be understood– yet it is so elementary – if the North Vietnamese would simply go home from South Vietnam, from Cambodia and Laos, this whole war would be ended tomorrow. Yet the opponents of President Nixon’s policies encourage them to stay and thereby encourage the war to continue.”

 

Leaving Vietnam, Packard talks about  the President’s “important and exciting new foreign policy.”

 

“In 1969, when the Nixon Administration took office, there was clearly a pressing need for a new foreign policy. We immediately began to re-evaluate our system of worldwide commitments, and after much analysis and evaluation of options, a new foreign policy began to evolve. It boils down to three important elements. First, it requires our friends and allies around the world to carry a larger share of the burden for their security – both in monetary cost and in manpower. Second, it proposes that we attempt, through negotiation, to reduce the points of friction and reduce the possibility of confrontation. Third, it demands we remain strong, since only from strength can we negotiate effectively. These three pillars form the core of the Nixon doctrine.”

 

 

Packard talks about each of these pillars. In defense of asking our friends and allies to share the burden of defense he says that “America has been carrying an unreasonable share of the free world’s defense. In 1968 the United States spent 9.5% of its GNP on defense. The same year Germany spent 2.9% and Japan spent less than 1%.”

 

“Our allies in both Europe and the Far East have made remarkable economic progress, and they should bear a larger share of the free world’s defense.”

 

“Next, let’s look at negotiation, the second pillar of the Nixon doctrine. Let me make clear that negotiation is not a codeword for capitulation.”

 

“Remarkable economic progress in both Western Europe and the Pacific rim permits our allies greater independence of action. And the Communist world, fractured by the Sino-Soviet rift, shows a similar trend towards national self-assertiveness in foreign policy.

 

“Exploiting this greater flexibility in the world situation, we have reached agreements with the Soviet Union on Berlin, germ warfare, and the prohibition of nuclear weapons on ocean seabed.

 

“The President has gone to China. And in the Middle East fighting has been replaced with discussions moving toward serious negotiations.

 

“The third pillar of the Nixon Doctrine, and the most important, is military strength, I say ‘most important’ because, without strength, negotiation with the Communists would be nothing more than capitulation, and burden-sharing would mean nothing more than walking away from our friends and allies.

 

“As Secretary Laird and I worked on planning our future military forces we were keenly aware of the need of America to remain strong. We recognized this country had been carrying too large a share of the defense burden for the free world, and we recognized the legitimate need for a larger share of federal resources to be allocated to domestic needs of the country.

 

“We did make substantial reductions in the share of the U.S. Gross National Product required for defense. In fiscal 1973 defense will require only 6.5% of GNP, the lowest drain on our economy in over twenty years. Down three full percentage points from the 9.5% defense took in 1968.

 

“At the same time we took major steps to improve our strategic nuclear forces. Against great opposition from the liberal Democrats in the Congress we went ahead with the ABM, with the MIRV and other programs which have assured that we have adequate nuclear strength, not only today, but on into the future.”

 

“We have also moved ahead with many other important new weapons programs during the past three years as we reduced our military manpower under the policy of the Nixon Doctrine. I can say to you without qualification – if the Congress supports the defense programs we have included in the FY 1973 budget, America will have the military strength to support the Nixon Doctrine throughout the decade of the 1970s and on into the decade of the 1980s.

 

“Frankly. I think that this country would be in serious trouble if we didn’t have a fighter like Dick Nixon running the show. Isolationism, which seems to be what the Democrats want, may have had some merits in the 1920s. In the 1970s withdrawal of America from the world scene would be catastrophic to the cause of peace. At home, the Democrats have set their hearts on a massive new load of spending schemes – ranging from nationalized health insurance to a WPA-type program for unemployed workers.”

 

“Skilled and tenacious men are working to break down our military strength around the world and to build up a collectivist state at home. To resist them, we need a fighter on our side. To resist them we need another four years of Richard Nixon in the White House.”

 

4/20/72, Copy of printed program for the United Republican Finance Committee dinner.

4/21/72, Copy of clipping from San Francisco Chronicle, 4/21/72  covering Packard’s speech

3/2/72, Letter to Packard from Robert R. Wood, Chairman Republican Central Committee

5/4/72, Complimentary letter to Packard from William L. Keady

 

 

Box 3, Folder 27 – General speeches

 

April 24, 1972, American Business Press, Silver Quill Award, Puerto Rico

 

4/24/72, Typewritten text of Packard’s speech with extensive handwritten notations and additions by him.

 

Packard starts out saying he was tempted to tell the audience about some of his “adventures in the jungles of Washington bureaucracy…about the dangers of excessive civilian meddling in the affairs of the military, about the need for military to put a high career priority on procurement problems, and so on….

 

“I have seriously considered telling something about the current situation in Vietnam, why it is essential for the President to respond – as he has responded – to the Soviet supported invasion by North Vietnam across the DMZ [demilitarized zone], and across the western border of South Vietnam. To tell you something that needs to be said again and again – If the North Vietnamese would simply go home – simply leave from South Vietnam, from Cambodia and from Laos, this war would be over tomorrow. But they will not go home as long as they have substantial support from many people in America – including elected officials and candidates for high office.”

 

Instead of the above, however, Packard says he has decided to talk about “the free enterprise system…in the context of the whole of American society.”

 

He says he wants to talk about this subject because he sees “a continuing erosion of our freedom in business and industry,” and, he judges, “the press feels put upon in this regard, as well.”

 

Packard says he has noticed that their “award describes America as a country which guarantees freedom of the press and freedom of enterprise.” And he says that “no society can be truly free unless both freedom in economic enterprise and freedom in political enterprise, of which journalism is one branch, are guaranteed. A blow at one will inevitably be a blow at the other.

 

“There are all too many people,” Packard continues, “including journalists, who do not understand the indivisibility of freedom. They imagine that governments can meddle in the economy without ultimately abridging political freedoms. As a matter of fact, the very left-wingers peddling this line are now feeling the error of their ways most acutely.”

 

In support of this last statement, Packard describes a situation at “Stanford University, where I was a Board member before leaving for the Pentagon. [At Stanford] there was recently a debate on whether to permit military recruiting on campus. Many faculty opposed such recruiting. But they did not oppose the tens of millions of dollars a year Stanford receives from the Federal Government; money which would be withdrawn if military recruiting were banned.

 

“And yet, they do not seem to have learned their lesson. Who do you think are now the loudest in proclaiming that universities need vast amounts of Federal aid for research into domestic problems – for scholarships for minorities, and for professorships in minority studies? So many of our left-wing intellectuals seem to think they can have it both ways: public money, but no public control. Well, they are learning the hard way what we believers in free enterprise have been saying all along: Federal aid means Federal control.”

 

Packard says the choice to refuse Federal aid – and thereby avoid Federal control, “is a desirable course wherever possible….The trouble is that Federal control has expanded much faster and much further than Federal aid. The tenor of the times is expanding Federal control. I am sure the expansion can not be stopped, but I do believe it can and should be slowed – better directed and made more constructive. The way to do this – and I believe the only way – is through better self discipline by the people involved and better leadership from the people involved – the business community, the publishing community, and indeed, all other private communities of our society.”

 

. “As I have said many times to my friends in [the defense] industry, if you don’t want a Senator Proxmire to chastize [sic] you for a C-5A program, don’t screw up the program so you deserve to be chastized. [sic]

 

“That is the lesson we in business and industry have not learned very well. Ralph Nader would not have enough credibility to get an audience if there was really no merit to his complaints. The environmentalists would have little influence if they were entirely wrong in what the say. The critics of the press could be ignored or would cease to exist if the press were, in fact, beyond criticism.”

 

Packard says he thinks “the increased criticism of business, at least in part, is the direct result of a lack of sufficient social awareness in the business community. I think that there are a number of reasons that businessmen resist [the] idea that they have social responsibilities, but I would like to point out these very same businessmen are the first people to spend lots of their free time helping out the lady down the street who just became a widow, or taking the kids next door on a camping trip while their father is in the hospital.”

 

Packard says he realizes “what is called a socially responsible activity is always changing….While perhaps exasperating, these shifts are natural. The needs of society change; as soon as society has conquered a certain problem, such as poor working conditions or inadequate higher education, it moves on to another problem. The businessman who fails to keep up with the trends of thought in society does so at his own risk, and, I might add, at the risk of society. The businessman, as we say in engineering, gets ahead of the power curve so he has some chance to direct its course instead of just letting it drag him along.”

 

“Businessmen must find ways by which they can help guide the overall thinking on a social issue. Take, for example, the environment. Already, we see two distinct lines of thought emerging: the one says that technology can be used to cure the ills created by technology; the other says virtually the opposite: that we should dramatically cut back our whole productive mechanism. The thoughtful businessman is better able than most so-called environmentalists to make an intelligent judgment on this score. How difficult it will be to clean up waste? Are new technologies designed to clean up waste likely to generate their own problems? How effectively could new low-polluting products replace what we have become accustomed to; in what time period and at what cost?

 

“Another reason for resisting the idea of social responsibility is a lack of clear guide lines among their colleagues within each industry as to what kind of behavior is proper and right, such as those codes of ethics that exist in the medical and legal professions. Naturally, without such guidelines the competitive forces of business discourage expensive exercises in social responsibility. For example, a steelmaker will be highly reluctant to undertake costly plant changes, thereby driving up his prices, to clean up his waste if he is not confident that such steps are being taken throughout the industry. One obvious solution to this – closer consultation among competitors over environmental issues – is currently discouraged by anti-trust laws. But this is a subject which should be followed up.”

 

“And finally, I suspect that much resistance to ‘social responsibility’ can be blamed on the way the extremist reformers push their ideas. When a Ralph Nader or a William Proxmire talk about business responsibility, he sounds like a vindictive prosecuting attorney rather than a friend asking for cooperation.

 

“ I must confess that I sympathize with businessmen who feel this way. I suspect that many corporate critics who tell business what should be their minority quotas, or emission level standards, or whatever, are not only anti-business, but are also hypocritical. They would be the first to squawk if you suggested that Harvard or Yale University has a social responsibility to produce certain kinds of young men and women. Can you imagine the liberal professors at Harvard, so eager to impose their particular standards of social progress on GM or General Foods, agreeing to a group of businessmen establishing measurements for a liberally educated undergraduate?

 

“ I want to say that I am very concerned about recent proposals to attempt to influence the business conscience by Universities through their investment portfolio. I doubt that General Motors or U.S. Steel could care less about whether or not Yale holds their stock – I am sure it would make no difference to the Hewlett-Packard Co.  If these Universities refuse to hold stock they would clearly also have to refuse to accept contributions from these corporations. To one who has worked very hard over the last decade to encourage more corporate support for higher education this would be a disappointing turn of events indeed.

 

“These crusaders seem bent on looking for villains and scapegoats. For example, all too many ecologists blame businessmen for pollution and proceed to argue that businesses should pay, out of their profits, to clean up the environment. They argue that private enterprise can not, because of its blind adherence to the profit motive, respond to these priority needs of our society. Such anti-free enterprise talk is nonsense.”

 

“However, despite all their shortcomings, these reformers are talking about issues which the whole country is thinking about. If they were not describing life as a lot of people see it, they would not receive the attention they do. We businessmen must listen to them for the general directions they see in society’s thinking.”

 

“However, we should be most wary about their particular prescriptions. Everyone in this room knows that if you want something done and you want it done well and fast, there is one segment of our society  to turn to: private enterprise. Once society has decided on general goals, free enterprise should have as much to do in implementing the goals as possible. It is imperative, therefore that businessmen take the lead in formulating and carrying out solutions to society’s problems. If government gets there first, salvaging the environment, or whatever, the task will become mired in red tape and duplication of effort and sloth. And, at the same time, additional controls will be imposed on the private sector.

 

“You in this room have a unique opportunity to help our business community understand the importance of responding to social issues. As publishers to the business world, you are key opinion molders of our free enterprise system. With the degree of objectivity which good publishers and reporters bring to their work, you can look at the broader picture. You can see that, while social responsibility may pose short-run inconveniences, it is very much in the long-run interests of American businessmen. You may not be thanked tomorrow for your efforts, but you will know that you helped to keep business in the vanguard of the American conscience where it must be if it is to remain free.

 

“Thank you.”

 

Undated, Copy of a booklet titled What is the Silver Quill?

2/4/70, Copy of the program from a previous award dinner

4/23/72, Advance registration for the American Business Press Eighth Spring Meeting

4/24/72, Copy of the program for the dinner presenting the award to Packard

 

4/3/72, Press release from ABP announcing the forthcoming award to Packard

4/23/72, Announcement from ABP to all attendees giving travel details

4/24/72, Press release from ABP covering award to Packard

1/31/72,  Internal HP memo from Russ Berg to Bob Boniface saying the ABP would like to present the Silver Quill Award to Packard.

1/31/72, Letter to Packard from Charles Mill of ABP describing the award and hope that Packard would be willing to receive it.

2/10/72, Copy of a letter to Charles Mill from Packard saying he would be pleased to accept the award

2/16/72, Copy of a letter to Packard from Charles Mill saying he is delighted Packard is willing to receive the award and enclosing some background material

3/17/72, Letter to Packard from William O’Donnell of ABP, asking for the name of the person with whom they can work on details Packard’s participation in the award dinner

3/20/72, Copy of a letter to William O’Donnell from Margaret Paull sending biographical material

4/14/72, Copy of a letter to Charles Mill from Melvin Laird, saying he will be unable to attend the award dinner and describing Packard’s contributions to the Department of Defense

4/19/72, Letter from President Nixon to Packard saying “It pleased me greatly to know that the American Business Press is presenting its Silver Quill Award to you. Your enduring achievements on behalf of our national defense have set standards which will be a source of strength and inspiration for all who follow you.”

4/20/72, Letter to Packard from William O’Donnell, ABP, saying they are looking forward to Packard’s arrival in Puerto Rico, and discussing local transportation arrangements.

4/25/72, Clipping form Palo Alto Times covering Packard’s speech

 

 

 

Box 3, Folder 28 – General speeches

 

April 28, 1972, The Businessman as a Public Official, San Francisco, CA

 

Packard was one of a panel of speakers at this Conference sponsored by the University of California School of Business Administration.

 

4/28/72, Set of 3×5” cards upon which Packard wrote some notes for his remarks. Hs notes are in brief outline form.

 

“Wide range of both private enterprises – corporate officials, government clerk – cabinet secretary

 

“Impression of government works because there are thousands of dedicated public servants – not because of the wisdom of the Congress or the elected and appointed officials.

 

“Where was my experience [in business] useful [in the DOD]: administration, decision making, technical knowledge

 

“Where was my experience of no value: dealing with Congress, good committees, bad committees; dealing with the public, simply had not done.

 

“Some problems: conflict of interest. Some useful programs, executive interchange

 

“Businessmen are no more able to reform government than anyone else.

 

“Did I learn anything useful?

 

3/8/72, Letter to Packard from Richard H. Holton, Dean School of Business Administration, discussing arrangements for the conference. A copy of the typewritten program is attached.

4/20/72, Letter to Packard from Dean Holton, saying they plan to tape the talks

4/24/72, Letter to Packard from Donald Fraser, member of the Executive Committee of the Business School, saying he will be Packard’s host contact during the conference

 

 

Box 3, Folder 29 – General Speeches

 

May 1, 1972, Investing in America, San Francisco, CA

 

5/1/72, Typewritten text of Packard’s speech

 

Since the organization, Invest-In-America, is directed primarily at educating young people about the importance of savings and corporate profits, Packard tells his audience  he will direct his comments to the young students invited to attend – since “I found it very difficult to think of anything I could say today that most of you do not already know.”

 

“What do we mean by ‘Invest-In-America?’ Packard asks. “Fundamentally, it means that we are working to promote the importance of the concept that individuals in America have the opportunity to invest their money…and also their time and energy and knowledge in enterprises of their personal choice.” Packard makes it clear that “This investment opportunity is not unique to America – it is also found in all countries which have not adopted the communist philosophy. The freedom of individuals to have the choice of investment is one of the important – indeed essential – freedoms of America and the entire free world.

 

“This option is not available to people in Communist countries. They are not allowed to own anything of substance, and no part of the productive establishment. In fact, an individual in those countries cannot own his own home, unless he has built it himself. These peoples have been sold the phony bill of goods that the productive establishment of their country belongs to the people – but nothing could be further from the truth. They cannot sell their share, not can they buy a larger share. Under Communism there is no such thing as ownership in the sense that the individual has anything to say about that share of the business or industry that supposedly belong to him as ‘one of the people.’ The people have no voice in how the productive establishment is to be operated.

 

Packard explains that freedom to invest is important “to provide the capital for our growing economy. These investments have a direct relationship to economic growth and progress.” And he adds that “growth is necessary if our country is to remain economically strong – an absolute must if we are to provide leadership in attaining the goals of peace and understanding among the countries of the world. Economic growth is also necessary if we are to continue our battle to improve the standards of living for every American. Economic growth means that there will be more dollars available to the hundreds and hundreds of charitable organizations and institutions throughout America who are working on the problems of the elderly, the disadvantaged, the handicapped. And, of course, economic growth on a national scale means economic growth on the individual scale, through improved earnings and benefits, and through the growth of personal investment.”

 

Packard also emphasizes the importance of freedom of investment of becoming a “part of the action in our economy….you can become, as a stockholder, a partner in the business you have chosen to invest in….

 

“It is through this process that millions of people have been able to participate in and benefit from the growth and success of the American economy on an individual basis.”

 

Packard tells how people in America can obtain financing for their business enterprises. “Decisions can be made by the people who will be able to implement those decisions and succeed or fail on the decisions they have made.

 

“Why is that important?,” Packard asks. “Why can’t a central authority decide what is to be produced and who is to produce it?…Wouldn’t it allow the resources of society to be allocated so as to produce on the most efficient basis the things the society needs.?

 

“The problem here,” Packard responds, “is that no one in a position of central authority, which would be the government, is that smart.”

 

As evidence,…”compare the range of products available at any shopping center in America with those available in any shop in Russia.”

 

Packard gives what he feels are the two most important benefits from a private investment economy – “First, it gives every American an opportunity to participate on a personal basis in our economic growth. Secondly, the economy is made more responsive to the needs and desires of the individual in our society through the individual investment process. It is an automatic and very efficient selection system. If you can build a better mousetrap you will be a success – and if you have this ability.”

 

Packard suggests there are other kinds of investments which have made America great. It is not just the stock or bonds you buy – or the money you put in a savings account and which in turn can be invested in a productive endeavor – it is also the time and energy and knowledge of millions of people which has been invested in endeavors of public service that have helped make America the great country it is today.”

 

“What is needed are businessmen, financiers, writers, and all sorts of professionals using their special talents, each should spend enough time to become familiar and sympathetic with the needs not only of a certain problem area – say fighting cancer

–but of the total organization. This would become his “other business.”

 

“I’d like to emphasize that I think the word ‘charity’ is a misnomer. The money and the time given to so-called charitable enterprises is in a very real sense investing in America. The value of this great personal investment by Americans of their substance, their time, and their talent is probably beyond measure. Whatever its measure, it is without any doubt becoming more important as our society becomes more complex.”

 

“I would like to say a word about the importance of a favorable climate to this investment process. Incentives to investment have been built into the tax laws—special rates for taxing capital gains, investment credit, special depreciation allowances. These special tax considerations have done much to make a high private investment rate possible in America. These tax provisions have brought about business expansion, more jobs, and better and lower cost products than would have been possible otherwise. Recently we have seen the emergence of a tax reform movement—an issue receiving considerable attention during the current wave of political campaigning. The people who are now talking about tax reform are talking mainly about closing so-called loopholes. These so-called loopholes they are talking about closing include mainly those incentives that have been built to encourage investment in America. The tax provisions for capital gains is one of the greatest incentives to invest in America. The reformers propose to apply a full tax on capital gains. This means that if someone in the 60% tax bracket sells a stock, he must pay 60% tax on his capital gains rather than 25%. I’m sure you can see the effect this would have on the free flow of capital.”

 

Packard goes on to depletion allowances, saying they “are provided as an incentive for investment in exploration and development and have played a crucial role in insuring that we have the natural resources, the necessary gas and oil, and other natural resources to supply our expanding economy. Elimination of this allowance would undoubtedly increase our reliance on imports at a time when our balance of trade is already in trouble.

 

“The Revenue Act of 1971 restored the investment credit, expanded deductions for charitable giving and was generally constructive to private investment. The tax reform proposals now advocated by the leading Democratic candidates would roll back these gains as well as other longstanding incentives to private investment. The proposed tax reform would be a severe blow to investing in America.

 

“Economic growth is part and parcel of the spirit of progress, exploration, and adventure that pervades the Western world. The spirit that encourages our investment in tomorrow is the same that makes us want to go to the moon or explore the mysteries of the atom, or inquire into the basic life processes. It is the spirit of American free enterprise.

 

“Economic growth gives us something to look forward to, to work for. It lets us anticipate a better life, with the hope and goal of an ever-improving standard of living and expansion of opportunities for all Americans.

 

“The stakes of American free enterprise are the stakes of investment in America. For efforts to keep alive this great and important tradition, I salute you.

 

“Thank you.”

 

2/3/72, Letter to Packard from H. J. Haynes, President Standard  Oil Company of California, inviting Packard to speak at the 18^th annual Invest-In-America luncheon. Attachments give background information

2/23/72, Copy of a letter to H. J. Haynes from Packard, accepting the invitation.

2/29/72, Letter to Packard from H. J. Haynes saying he is delighted that Packard has accepted their invitation to speak

4/12/72,  Copy of the formal invitation to the luncheon, and printed program

5/1/72, Letter to Packard from H. J. Haynes thanking Packard for his “most realistic presentation at the luncheon

5/2/72, Letter to Packard from Robert R. Gros asking for a copy of Packard’s speech which he wants to send to the Freedoms Foundation

5/4/72, Copy of a letter to the Freedoms Foundation from Ivy Lee, Jr. sending them a copy of Packard’s speech

5/11/72, Letter to Packard from Ivy Lee Jr. enclosing photographs taken at the luncheon

5/2/72, Clipping from the San Francisco Chronicle covering Packard’s speech

 

 

Box 3, Folder 30 – General Speeches

 

May 10, 1972 Invest in America, Annual Achievement Banquet, San Jose State College, CA

 

In the words of the School “The primary purpose of the banquet is to present awards to deserving business students. Each of the seven departments of the School selects students, who, on the basis of certain qualifications, have been nominated to receive either a financial award or a plaque, or similar item of recognition, donated by various local and national organizations or corporations.”

 

5/10/72, Typewritten text of Packard’s speech

 

Packard says he is pleased “to be speaking before a group of young men and women who are embarking on a career in business.” He says his own career in business has been challenging and exciting and he is confident theirs will be too….”America is teeming with opportunities for ambitious young businessmen and businesswomen.”

 

Packard wonders why young people sometimes think careers in business are considered ‘boring’ or ‘ignoble.’ “It might seem that there are some necessary

projects which can only be performed by government, such as pollution control. But the fact is, anything as big as pollution control cannot be handled by government alone. Strong control would bring chaos and inertia to the work necessary to solve the problems of pollution. There would be chaos, because there are simply too many millions of day-to-day decisions –affecting jobs, paychecks and progress in other areas, as well as the environment – for Washington bureaucrats to handle the problem intelligently. And there would be inertia, because once Americans think Uncle Sam will do the job, they forget their own responsibilities.”

 

“Businessmen are perhaps the most important group of private citizens that should involve themselves in social efforts such as the pollution battle.” Explaining this statement, he says businessmen would have a better practical  understanding of the technology required, would have a better appreciation of the value of the dollar, and would have more flexibility, allowing him to try alternatives and switch to the best one.

 

“By contrast, the bureaucrat…cannot use funds for other than legislated purposes. Even if he can save or generate money through above-average efficiency….The result is to discourage new, more effective programs and to perpetuate old programs, however inefficient they may be.”

 

Packard also feels the businessman “can be more objective than the politician in appraising social action programs. Trained in the hard realities of profit-and-loss statements, he will more likely scrutinize the effectiveness of a given program and be less swayed by its lofty-sounding, if unattainable, goals.”

 

“Nowhere is the need for efficient administrators more evident than in the Defense Department. The enormous size of the operation, the massive procurement problems, and the importance of national security makes the pentagon a prime candidate for business management techniques.”

 

Packard says when he and Mel  Laird first came to the Defense Department they found many problems – cost over-runs in procurement, poor communications, poor intelligence, scandals, and friction in the chain of command.

 

“Yet, as I worked with the people in the Department, I found them to be as capable individuals as you would find in the best business organizations of the country.”

 

“Why, then, were there so many management problems? The answer, in my opinion, is very simple. Managing the department of defense is a political job as well as a business management job. Secretary Laird and I were able to bring about some improvements in the management of the Department during the past few years because he could handle the political side, while I could give some attention to the management side.”

 

Packard reports that they “were able to make some major strides forward in procurement. We improved the training, selection, and recognition of procurement officers. We established a new procurement school. We worked out the fly-before-you-buy concept, under which costs of development are separated out from costs of production.”

 

“Unhappily, however, I must report that Congressional meddling in Pentagon affairs prohibited us from taking many other much-needed steps. There were, as always, Congressmen fighting to bring bases and contracts to their home districts. And there was the new phenomena of left-wing Congressmen finding fault with all major new weapons systems, whatever their merits or however efficient they might be.”

 

“And these fault finders spoke not with a spirit of constructive criticism, but with the belligerency of headline-hungry opportunists. Time and time again, they distorted facts and used them out of context, simply to make a point that might embarrass the military and hit the front pages. During the three years I spent in the Pentagon these critics did not bring to light a single problem that was not already well understood and being worked on by competent professional people.”

 

“And yet they certainly did contribute to inefficiency in the Defense Department. We wasted thousands of man hours responding to Congressional interrogations – which were inspired to impress the people back home, not to contribute to the solution of a problem.”

 

“I further regret to say that uninformed Congressional criticism is not limited to management problems in the Pentagon. It extends to our overall foreign policy, and in recent months has taken on an ominously isolationist tone. Look, for example, at the recent Senate vote to kill the Foreign Aid program overnight, with no provisions to effectively phase out the program, or provide for adequate substitutes.”

 

“Perhaps the most dramatic evidence of the current isolationist fever is the defense platform of senator George McGovern. McGovern, remember, currently leads the democratic field in terms of committed delegates. And, after being dismissed a scant two months ago as a splinter candidate, now has a very good chance of winning the Democratic presidential nomination.

 

“He would cut the Marine Corps from 200,000 to 140,000 by 1975. He would recommend that the Air Force be cut from 750,000 to 475,000. Deployment of the SAFEGUARD system would be halted. The development of the B-1 bomber, a very important element of our future strategic nuclear capability, also would be halted he would stop the F15 development, which is the most important program we have to keep ahead of the Soviets in tactical air power.

 

“In short, Senator McGovern wold disarm the United States and gamble the future of our country on the goodwill of the Soviet Union.

 

“Senators aren’t the only ones whose irrationality is pushing America towards isolationism. While I was in Washington, I heard scientists use their reputations gained in unrelated fields to influence legislation to stultify national defense programs—particularly the all-important nuclear programs. I heard distinguished newsmen favor Hanoi, Moscow, and New Delhi over America in their reporting. I heard mindless criticism flooding in from academe.

 

Packard anticipates that some may ask what is wrong with isolating ourselves from the world?

 

“The answer to this is that we no longer live in the 1920s. We can no longer shut out the world. If we do not actively pursue peace around the world, war originating elsewhere in the world will end up dragging us in, as they have in the past.” And Packard recalls  Neville Chamberlain coming back from Munich with an agreement which was to be ‘Peace in Our time’ in 1938.”

 

“And even if we do steer clear of war, a hostile power dominating Europe and controlling the Middle East, the Indian Ocean, and the western shores of the Pacific, would inevitably limit our ability to contribute political, economic, and cultural leadership to other countries around the world.

 

“Let there be no doubt that a hostile power does threaten to dominate both Europe and these other important areas of the world. I am referring, of course, to the Soviet Union.”

 

“While the Soviet Union is probably not realistically planning all-out war against either western Europe or the United States, it undoubtedly does expect to reap political and strategic gains from its recent arms build-up.”

 

“We can no longer be sure we could deter the Soviets in the way we did during the 1962 Cuban Missile crises.

 

“The Soviets increasing naval strength will give them much greater power and flexibility in many areas of the world. The Eastern Mediterranean is perhaps the most critical. But the Indian Ocean and the Western Pacific are areas where they could become the dominant power….In simple terms, if we withdraw from the world, the Soviets will become the dominant power in the world and we will become a second-rate nation.

 

“While we would not necessarily face an immediate Communist take-over at home, we would become, like other nations that have recently withdrawn from world affairs, a has-been nation. I hope that’s not the kind of a future you young people want to look forward to.”

 

Packard explains that this series of events would have economic repercussions as well. “All sorts of initiatives, described as efforts to restrict ‘U.S. Imperialism,’ would whittle away at our international commerce. Without a strong military to rely on, we would be forced to yield again and again.

 

“This would do serious harm to our economy. Many of our key industries depend heavily on foreign trade. Many of our natural resources come from abroad, and sole reliance on domestic sources would quickly deplete our reserves. Our shipping and air transport industries, of course, are highly dependent on a high level of foreign trade, and our high technology industries rely heavily on exports for sales.”

 

“It is folly to pretend, as so many politicians do, that we can isolate ourselves from the world without catastrophic effects to our national security, our economic well-being and, even more fundamentally, our national spirit.

 

“I say ‘our national spirit’ because the greatness of America has always been the spirit of growth, development, adventure, and search for new horizons. This is the soul of America, and it is also the soul of youth. Those who would suffer most, if we cannot shed our national introspection, will be the young people of America. Young people, who are just beginning their lives and want the chance to grow with their country—the same chance their parents and granPackardarents had. I hope, therefore, that you in this room—particularly you students—will join with those of us fighting to keep America self-confident, a leader and a participant in the expanding opportunities of all the world.

 

“Thank you for your interest and attention.”

 

5/10/72, Printed program for the Fourteenth Annual Achievement Banquet Program

5/10/72, Printed brochure about the School of Business

2/11/72, Letter to Packard from George Stauss, Professor, San Jose State College, inviting Packard to be the guest speaker at their Annual Achievement Banquet

2/22/72, Copy of a letter from Packard to George Stauss accepting the invitation

3/7/72, Letter to Packard giving details of the banquet

4/30/72, Clipping from the San Jose Mercury News saying Packard is to speak to Business School Grads

5/4/72, Internal HP memorandum from Security Chief Dick Coulter to Packard telling him that the Santa Clara Police expect some 300 students and non-students to hold a ‘mock trial’ in an attempt to disrupt his speaking. The memo discusses security for transporting Packard to and from the banquet.

 

5/9/72,  Memo from Dick Coulter to Margaret Paull discussing further security details

5/10/72, Typed statement which appears to have been written (and perhaps spoken at the banquet) by John H. Bunzel, President of San Jose State College. The statement is his reply to an  accusation that he brings disgrace to himself and the College by associating with David Packard, ‘a man who has blood on his hands.’

5/10/72, Handwritten letter to Packard from  a Tom Gautner enclosing a “Wanted poster” circulated by protesters. The letter wishes Packard well.

5/11/72, Clipping from the San Jose Mercury News covering Packard’s speech

5/12/72, Letter to Packard from George Stauss thanking him taking ‘such a personal interest in our business students at our recent Achievement Banquet.’

5/15/72, Letter to Packard from Millburn D. Wright, Dean of the School of Business, thanking him for speaking at their banquet.

6/30/72, Copy of a letter from Packard to Marlene Stauss thanking her for making him a ‘special’ tie, and saying he “appreciates it very much.”

Undated, Newspaper clipping telling of Packard’s forthcoming speech

Undated, More samples of protest flyers

 

 

Box 3, Folder 31 – General speeches

 

May 18, 1972, Military Affairs Luncheon, San Francisco, CA, Chamber of Commerce

 

5/18/72, Typewritten text of Packard’s speech

 

“We are gathered here today to honor the men and women who serve America in the uniform of their country….They are great  people, and they deserve and need the understanding and support of every loyal American.”

 

Packard says he was “most impressed” with the men and women in the Armed Forces while he was at the Pentagon – with their efficiency, their dedication. “It is often fashionable to characterize men who make a career of the military as unable to do anything else. [They] seem to believe…that military service is not noble, and therefore attracts people for only the basest reasons. This is simply not true. Most soldiers, particularly those who devote their lives to the military, believe strongly in the need for and the importance of the security of our country. They know that America must remain strong if America is to remain free.”

 

Packard cites many other reasons why men and women are attracted to military life – the outdoor life, being in an organization which has precision and efficiency, professional opportunities such engineering, flying, navigation, communications.

 

“People trying to downgrade the calibre [sic] of our servicemen often point to drug and race problems in Vietnam, and many of our newspapers are all too happy to play up these themes. But how often do we read about the winners of medals for heroism, or the soldiers in Vietnam who work off-hours to help teach Vietnamese kids English or help Vietnamese families build better houses?”

 

Packard recalls that Senator Fulbright charged that American troops were turning Saigon into a brothel. “But how much news coverage has been given to the lasting friendships developed between Americans and Vietnamese? Or about the foreign girls American soldiers marry during their overseas tours?”

 

Packard says he is “sickened”  when he hears of “spoiled young elitists on our college campuses demonstrating against President Nixon’s efforts to resist blatant aggression. And even those students who only circulate petitions –like the one to cut off all supplies to our men who are in Vietnam – are not much better. They hurt our troops’ morale and encourage the North Vietnamese to continue their aggression…perhaps causing irreparable damage…to our national security.”

 

“A particularly regrettable result of student dissent is the removal of ROTC programs from many of our so-called prestige colleges. These ROTC programs were providing some of our best young officers – men who could eventually move to the highest levels. And now that we are moving to a smaller Army, it becomes increasingly important that our leaders be the best available; quality must substitute for quantity.

 

“Our colleges and universities have a responsibility to contribute to the quality of training and leadership of our Armed forces. Those that do not, deserve the support of neither the Federal Government nor the general public.

 

“Personally, I have nothing but contempt for the college and university Presidents who approved the removal of ROTC from their compuses. I do not exempt Stanford from this judgment, despite all the time, energy, and substance I have devoted to my Alma Mater.”

 

Before leaving the subject of ROTC, Packard points out that “certain institutions are considering reinstating ROTC.” And he adds that “during the last three years, when ROTC programs were being thrown off 38 of the ‘elite’ universities, 58 new ROTC programs were established at other colleges – particularly in the West and the South. It would seem that, once again it has been demonstrated that the great common sense of the country is not very well represented at the Harvards, the Yales, and the Stanfords.”

 

Packard says there are other places where “irrationality over the military” can be found – “emotional anti-military harangues from columnists, liberal Congressmen and others.”

Packard feels “disenchantment with the Vietnamese war underlies much of this anti-military fervor. Many Americans – disenchanted with the war and puzzled as to what went wrong – turned against the military as the most visible symbol of our problems in Vietnam. While unfair, at least this reaction is rooted in genuine bewilderment.

 

“But there is another source of anti-military rhetoric which is nowhere near as innocent. And that is the liberals who got us into the war in the first lace. Having seen the war going badly, they looked for a scapegoat that would turn attention away from their failures. The military, highly visible and misunderstood by many Americans, was the obvious target.

 

“Incidents such as My Lai fell right into the critics’ hands. For at My Lai the military clearly abused their power. The liberal line, peddled by politicians and press alike, tended to downplay the extreme provocations Calley faced and the fact that none of our other officers, despite similar provocations, have overreacted. Instead, we heard over and over about alleged cover-ups and the obvious brutality of the killings. The message was loud and clear: ‘The military is out of control, we liberals who started this war wash our hands of it.’

 

“In point of fact, of course, far from getting out of control, our soldiers in Vietnam have been the victims of excessive civilian controls. Our political leaders permitted Cambodia to be used as a sanctuary of the North Vietnamese. Prior to 1970 the Communists were allowed to bring supplies through the Port of Sihanoukville and establish bases 35 miles from Saigon and all along the border of south Vietnam.”

 

“Ground action to cut the HO Chi Min trail was avoided and many other constraints were placed on our military people in Vietnam.

 

“There were reasons for this civilian control and reasons why specific actions were taken or were not taken. When they did not work out, however, it is not the military that should be given the blame.”

 

Packard refers to critics who have started “peddling the line that our war effort is aggressive, aimed not at preserving world peace but at securing bases, winning economic gains, or even giving our soldiers the sheer joy of killing.” He finds the last idea “simply beyond belief.”

 

“As to the notion that we seek some sort of permanent economic or territorial advantage, America’s record during the twentieth century speaks for itself. Despite winning three wars, we have neither sought nor gained a single economic concession or permanent territorial gain. In striking contrast, wealth and territory were central war aims of the totalitarian powers we fought against.

 

“Our goal has been simple enough: lasting peace. We have been willing to spend hundreds of thousands of lives and hundreds of billions of dollars to achieve this simple goal.”

 

But Packard says he regrets that “we do not seem to have learned the first lesson of international politics: military strength and an active foreign policy are necessary to achieve a lasting peace. After World War I, which might have been prevented by active American diplomacy, we were pulled into another great war, which firm resistance to early Nazi aggression could have prevented. After World War II, we brought all our troops home and excluded vital segments of the Asian rim from our defense perimeter. This folly led to the Korean war and confrontation with the Soviet Union in eastern and southeastern Europe.

 

“Now many Americans would have us once again withdraw from world affairs and a strong defense posture. What new war would this bring? I would like to ask.

 

“In this day and age, I believe that the best chance the world has to limit the extent of war is for the leading nations of the world to be strong enough to deter attacks upon each other and then be willing to cooperate in responsible ways to minimize conflict among the smaller nations of the world.”

 

“In planning for the future, there are two programs worth special mention. One is to provide for substantial improvements in the responsiveness and survivability of the command and control of our strategic nuclear forces. This program is so urgent that the President requested a supplemental appropriation for the fiscal 1972 budget to accelerate it.

 

“The other is ULMS (Undersea Long-Range Missile Submarine Force). This program is essential to provide survivable submarine-based missiles to replace our aging Polaris-Poseidon force. The ULMS submarines can be based at home, under the protection of our fleet. Our allies are showing increasing reservations about allowing U.S. nuclear weapons on their territory, and it is therefore prudent to have submarines which can be based at home as soon as possible.

 

“The Nixon Administration has also been moving ahead on conventional forces.” And he names several weapons systems – the F-15, the Ax, the F-14, the Harrier and the Agile missile. “We increased the Navy shipbuilding budget by some $2 billion, which increases the production of nuclear attack submarines, modern destroyers and frigates. We have two nuclear carriers under construction and have requested funds for the third in the fiscal year 1973 budget.”

 

“And R and D has been increased. We increased it from $7 billion in 1971 to $7.7 billion this year, and we requested $8.5 billion for fiscal year 1973.”

 

“ Because of all these efforts, we have been able to bargain from strength, and the results are encouraging. We have reached agreements on Berlin, germ warfare, and the prohibition of nuclear weapons on ocean seabeds.

 

“We have made progress on the strategic arms limitations talks, and this round of negotiations is a magnificent example of the advantage of bargaining from strength. Our decision to move ahead on ABM and other strategic systems has induced the Soviets to negotiate seriously. Had we taken the advice of certain left-wing Senators and abandoned these projects – in effect, unilaterally disarmed – the Soviets would have been pleased. But they would have had no motivation to work toward an arms limitation agreement with us.

 

“Unfortunately, we have not yet reached the second requirement for the possibility of permanent world peace – the ability of the superpowers to keep wars from breaking out in smaller countries.

 

“This, of course, is no easy matter. An increasing number of nations resent what they consider big-power meddling, even when peace is the objective.

 

“Furthermore, there are fundamental differences between the Soviet Union and the United States which may prevent cooperative peace-keeping. Soviet arms shipments to North Vietnam and provocations in the Middle East testify to the inherent problems in any scheme of superpower peace-keeping.”

 

“It is important that this support be translated into specific actions that will demonstrate to our soldiers and sailors how much we appreciate them, and how much esteem we have for those who make a career of the military. It will become increasingly important to encourage men and women to stay in the Armed Services as we move to an all-volunteer Army, since the all-volunteer army will eliminate many draft-induced enlistments.”

 

Packard has some recommendations which members of the audience can do to help: placing veterans in jobs, involving the Presidio personnel in things like parades and other community action projects.

 

He recommends encouraging reservists, “since our smaller active forces will require a strong and ready reserve.”

 

“These are just a few suggestions, and I am sure all of you have your own ideas as to how to better recognize the fine young men and women who are serving you and your country.

 

“Let’s make every day Armed Forces Day!”

 

5/18/72, Copy of the program for the day’s events

12/27/71, Letter to Packard from Ben Swig, Chairman, Military Affairs Committee, inviting Packard to be the guest speaker at the Chamber of Commerce’s Military Affairs Luncheon.

12/29/71, Copy of a letter from Packard to Ben Swig accepting the invitation to speak.

1/6/71 [sic], Letter to Packard from Ben Swig thanking him for accepting their invitation.

5/12/72, Letter to Packard from Lex J. Byers, Coordinator Military Affairs Luncheon, enclosing ticket for the head table.

5/18/72, Letter to Packard from James M. Gere, a professor at Stanford, saying he shares Packard’s feelings about support for ROTC , and that he has been embarrassed by the actions of some of his colleagues.

5/18/72, Letter to Packard from Finley Carter congratulating him on his speech.

5/19/72, Letter to Packard from Ralph N. Cole, a Stanford grad,  thanking him for his speech. He encloses a copy of a letter to President Richard Lyman of Stanford from himself expressing “dismay and outrage” at President Lyman’s recent letter to President Nixon expressing “dismay and outrage” at the bombing of North Vietnam.

5/20/72, Letter to Packard from Walter M. Morand agreeing with Packard’s point of view. A news clipping is attached.

5/21/72, A handwritten letter to Packard from Bert L. Frescura who says he is an employee of HP, attending Stanford on the Honors Cooperative Program. He says he agrees with Packard’s viewpoint on the ROTC.

5/21/72, Handwritten letter to Packard from Darwin F. Godfrey, saying he was pleased to hear Packard’s comments.

5/21/72, Note to Packard from Archie Brown, saying it was with “deep satisfaction” that he read Packard’s comments.

5/22/72, Letter to Packard from Mark A. Whalen, Rear Admiral U. S. Coast Guard, saying he appreciated the opportunity to hear Packard speak.

5/22/72, Letter to Packard from J. Richard Finnegan saying he was delighted with Packard’s comments and asking for a copy.

5/22/72, Letter to Packard from Robert E. Franck applauding Packard for his speech.

6/7/72, Copy of a letter from Packard to Robert E. Franck thanking him for his letter.

5/23/72, Handwritten note to Packard from George S. Harman, saying it was a pleasure to read Packard’s speech, and enclosing a news clipping.

5/24/72, Letter to Packard from Alfred D. Kirkland agreeing with Packard’s comments.

5/25/72, Letter to Packard from Prentis Hale congratulating Packard on his speech.

5/25/72, Letter to Packard from Edwin Tilton thanking Packard for his speech.

5/30/72, Letter to Packard from Willard G. Houghton congratulating Packard on his thoughts.

6/7/72, Letter to Packard from Allan G. Tate agreeing with his comments

 

5/18/72, Clipping from Palo Alto Times covering Packard’s speech

5/19/72, Clipping form Stanford Daily reporting on Packard’s speech

5/29/72, Clipping from unnamed newspaper with letters to editor disagreeing with Packard

Undated, Clipping from unnamed paper covering Packard’s speech

 

 

Box 3, Folder 32 – General Speeches

 

May 23, 1972, Annual Awards Luncheon, San Francisco, Jr. Chamber of Commerce

 

5/23/72, Typed text of Packard’s speech

 

Saying that there is “a certain exhilaration for young people who have their careers ahead of them”, Packard recalls some of the achievements when HP was starting: building the first building , having a hundred people on the payroll, starting a plant in Germany….

 

“For nearly two hundred years there have been great opportunities for young people in America …a satisfying life in this free enterprise economy.” He says we face a question as to whether “ these kinds of opportunities [will] continue and be there for your children as well.”

 

He wonders if we are caught in some “irresistible and irreversible thrust” toward a “people’s democracy” as the revolutionaries and communists say. He says he doesn’t know if the tide we are caught in is irresistible and irreversible, but he says it may become so “and overwhelm our free institutions and destroy our individual freedom unless we take it more seriously and do something about it.”

 

Packard describes some candidates who are running for office as the ‘people’s candidate.’ “What this means,” he says, “is they want to give the fruits of your labor to the so-called ‘people.’ To the ‘people’ who are protesting in the streets….Where this kind of radical gets elected, he will seek to destroy the opportunity for the accomplishments we are honoring here today.”

 

Packard also says he is “greatly troubled” by the candidacy of George McGovern, the leading Democratic candidate. “McGovern,” he says, ”would cut thirty billion dollars from the Defense budget. Such a cut would, in effect, disarm America and destroy our opportunity for world leadership. Furthermore it would destroy the jobs of three million people who are working to keep America strong.” He refers to McGovern’s talk of finding jobs for everyone as “old New Deal WPA.”

 

Packard tells his audience there are two things they and he can do about this situation. “The first is a short term action and is very simple – get out and work for candidates on the local, state, and national level who will fight for the preservation of our free enterprise system.

 

“The longer term action which the business community must take is to recognize and deal with some of the problems which radical liberals are exploiting. Businessmen can deal effectively with the problems of our society both in their professional role and in what they do in their extra-curricular activities.”

 

“Many critics charge that business ought to be more ‘responsive to pressing problems,’ that it ought to ‘put people above profits,’ that it ought to develop a ‘social conscience,’ that it ought to ‘put human rights above property rights’ and on and on. My response to such critics is ”how many payrolls did you meet this week? What useful products have you placed in the hands of an overworked housewife or busy businessman?” Packard says business is not “some special interest” divorced from the mainstream of society. “…private enterprise is a remarkable effective mechanism for meeting the basic needs of everyone in our society.” And he mentions supermarkets, automobiles, housing, the garment industry, and he asks “Where is there a country or a system with the standard of living so high? Where is there a country with such a great opportunity for an individual to improve his personal situation?”

 

So, then, “What is wrong? Why is business vulnerable to criticism and attack? One reason these anti-business attitudes have gained ground, I regret to say, is that all too often businessmen have not behaved like good neighbors. They have put short-term gains ahead of their long-term reputation.”

 

Packard describes some business people who cheat customers and take advantage the unsophisticated, “Sharksters” he calls them, and says they give all businessmen a bad name. “Doctors and lawyers regulate themselves, and this is the reason they have become known as professionals. When other elements of business and industry impose the same stiff standards on themselves, they will have taken a giant step towards professionalism.

 

“The responsible businessman also thinks about what special effort he can make to help the community. I like to call this investing in the community. This may be helping a charity—a local college, dance troupe, or hospital. Or it may be something in your own business that represents an extraordinary expense.”

 

“Investing in the community does not necessarily mean doing what other people tell us needs to be done. It means doing what we can do, in the most responsible way.”

 

“The point is, let your conscience, not political fads, be your guide to investment in the community.

 

“If you are contributing substantial money to outside charities, I urge that you contribute your time as well—that you roll up your sleeves and get involved in the management of your favorite charities.”

 

Packard feels business can bring a fresh perspective to community enterprises, and he gives the example of education. “During the campus demonstrations of the 1960s academic administrator after academic administrator bowed to, and at times encouraged, the rhetoric that breaking windows and heckling speakers are ‘symbolic free speech’ and that a university should be a place of political activism. The result, predictable, was public revulsion with higher education. The natural question was asked everywhere: Why should I pay taxes or make contributions to support rioting?”

 

Packard says, “Our universities today would be stronger and more widely respected if, during the 1960s, boards of Trustees around the country had exerted control over the day-to-day functioning of our universities.” He acknowledges this would not have been easy, and adds that “you would be amazed at the marvelous arguments university staffs have as to why contributors and Board members should stick to giving money and forget about how their money is being spent”

 

As another example of how businessmen might contribute to community organizations Packard says “…look at how resistant charities can be to cost-benefit analyses. Many general purpose hospitals are spending vast amounts of money on specialized programs—such as nurse-training—which could be handled much more efficiently at specialist hospitals. Often these services have become an established part of a hospital’s self-image, and a thoroughly objective cost-benefit analysis is never applied.

 

“Another talent businessmen can bring to charities is setting up quantitative goals. They do this in their own organizations all the times: whether it is market share, return-on-investment, earnings per share, or whatever. Such tangible goals provide a common target for employees, and, if well chosen, can be great morale-builders.”

 

“Businessmen working in charities could help set up quantitative goals and keep them sophisticated and updated. If, for example, you are working with a hospital, it might be worthwhile to set a goal of holding the average daily cost to patients to a 2 percent annual rise over three years. Adjustments for inflation or other extraordinary effects would be made regularly. This goal might encourage greater efficiency among workers, especially if incentive payments were reasonable and could be instituted.”

 

“I am firmly convinced that the private business community can help in meeting the social needs of our country more effectively than can the government, either local, state, or national.

 

“But there are many candidates running this year who do not believe this. They are against what you and I believe in and stand for. They would have the federal government take on more and more and more. They must not be elected to office if we are to reverse this trend toward socialism. That is your short term job, and it is very important this year.

 

“Over the longer term we must all continue to see that free enterprise American business meets the needs of our society. Not just the goods and services for our customers, and the wages and benefits for our employees, and the profits for our stockholders and on which our businesses depend for stability and growth—but we must also as businessmen and businesswomen contribute to the quality of life in the community around us and help the people of this country fulfill their spiritual needs as well as their material needs. That is our longer term job. It is very important, and it will never be finished.

 

“Thank you.”

 

5/23/72, Prior draft of Packard’s speech with extensive handwritten sections by Packard

 

3/28/72, Letter to Packard from Gerald P. Flannerey, President, San Francisco Jr. Chamber of Commerce inviting Packard to be the keynote speaker at their Annual Awards Luncheon in San Francisco.

Feb. 1972, Copy of printed newsletter called the “San Franciscan” published by the Jr. CC

Undated, Copy of a printed brochure called “The War of Apathy,” also from the Jr. CC

5/24/72, Clipping from the San Francisco Chronicle covering Packard’s speech

October, 1972, Copy of a newspaper called “Th Universal Voice.” The paper says it is published by “the International Re-Education Foundation, a non-profit corporation whose purpose is to promote a better man and a better society by the development of human character.”

 

 

Box 3, Folder 33 – General Speeches

 

August 4, 1972, Pepperdine University Commencement Address, Santa Monica, CA

 

8/4/72, Typewritten copy of Packard’s speech

 

Speaking to the graduating class at Pepperdine, Packard thinks back to his own years at Stanford. He says a course in American History had a “profound” influence on his thinking. He says he “dreamed about the days when men could leave the troubled civilization of Europe and find unbounded hope and opportunity in America;” – followed, as eastern cities developed, by the call – “go west, young man, go west.”

 

However, he says there was no “further west to go in 1934,” when he graduated from Stanford.

 

He admits, however, that as he looks back on what has happened since 1934 he realizes that this has been “as exciting and as adventurous a period for America as any period during the great romantic westward movement.” And just as exciting and satisfying for himself  “as anything that might have happened to him if he could have…turned back the clock to the period 1834 to 1872 -–the golden years of the great westward movement.”

 

Packard pictures the period of the western movement as a time when “there was unlimited land, an abundance of game, and mineral resources to be had for the taking.  Life centered around the family, mobility was severely limited, and communication between geographical areas of the country was slow and lacking in detail. For the most part it was an agrarian, non-scientific culture.

 

“During the first six decades of this century, science and economic development created a new culture. I remember I heard my first radio broadcast in 1922 when I was ten years old. On the dining room table of our home in Pueblo, Colorado, I hooked up a primitive vacuum tube my father had bought for me and the family took turns listening to WHO in Des Moines, Iowa.” He draws the contrast, when, fifty year later the whole world visited China along with President Nixon via man-made satellite in space.”

 

Packard takes a try at answering a key question that faces the young people graduating today – “What are our opportunities as we step out into the real world?” While “No one can predict what your opportunities will be,” he says…”there is one clue…and that comes from the basic nature of growth. Physical growth tends to be exponential rather than linear.”

 

But this growth brings its problems as well, Packard acknowledges. “If the usage of many [natural resources] now considered critical to our economy continues to grow at an exponential rate, the world’s supply will be exhausted within your lifetime. Silver, copper, chromium and a number of other metals fall into this category – and even oil could be exhausted in only a few generations.

 

“Within the past two centuries we have seen the beginning of the end of unlimited resources – first of land and those other things available for the taking, and now even some of the things that have been the products of science. The scarey [sic] thing is that this great change has come about within the memory of people at least some of us have known – our parents and our granPackardarents.

 

“I suppose the fact that many of you young people are troubled about what your parents and your granPackardarents have done is because we are reaching the point where the traditional attitude – the acceptance of and commitment to exponential growth -–is rapidly bringing our world to an unacceptable situation.

 

“The evidence of the development of this unacceptable situation, resulting from uncontrolled growth, is mounting – pollution the most obvious. I think a general awareness is evolving, that what we have been doing in the past cannot continue forever in the future – in many respects cannot even continue for very long.

 

“This is the great challenge for you young people who are graduating in 1972. You may long for things the way they were – or may accept things the way the are, but you are the ones who will have to make things the way they are going to be. You are faced with the awesome task of solving the ecological problems posed by our population and by the demands of our technological society. And as you approach these problems, keep in mind that the goal is to survive not for just another generation or two, but for as long as the sun shall shine – for at least another billion years.

 

“I will not even attempt to predict what the future holds for you, except to assure each of you that in at least three ways it will be similar to my future in 1934. There will be challenge, there will be change, and there will be opportunity.

 

“Good luck, and God bless you.”

 

 

8/4/72, Six notebook pages handwritten by Packard as a draft of comments to include in his speech.

7/19/72 Clipping form New York Times,  with article about rising income during the 1960s. No doubt included as reference material for Packard

5/10/72, Letter to Packard from William S. Banowsky, President of Pepperdine University saying the University would like to award Packard the Degree of Doctor of Laws, and would also like Packard to deliver the commencement address.

6/5/72, Letter to Packard from William Banowsky, giving details for the commencement. Also, apparently in response to a question raised by Packard, assures him that no protest activities are expected.

8/8/72, Letter to Packard from Herbert W. Kalmbach congratulating Packard on his address.

10/31/72,Ttypewritten note to Packard from Norvel Young sending six photos taken at the commencement.

 

 

Box 3, Folder 34 – General speeches

 

September 14, 1972, Annual Meeting, The Salvation Army, San Francisco, CA

 

9/14/72, Typewritten copy of Packard’s speech

 

Packard says he is pleased and honored to be here today, because  – “In many ways the ideals and the accomplishments of the Salvation Army represent to me the America I was brought up in, and the America I believe in.”

 

Packard says he appreciates “that after your long and first-hand involvement with the poverty, the ill health, and the degradation which many people of America have suffered for many years, you have not surrendered to the notion that simply more money from the government will cure the social ills of our country.

 

“I am impressed that you stress the importance of spiritual guidance – and with this foundation you believe that dedicated people who are willing to work for what they believe in can contribute more to the resolution of the problems of our time than billions of dollars of federal funds administered through the often un-informed and inept – and nearly always political and unresponsive – bureaucracy of the federal government, whether it be Republican or Democratic.”

 

“The pressures are strong indeed to encourage people to believe that if we simply spend more money on our social problems they will be solved. The pressures to encourage people to believe that the government in Washington can do everything are also strong. This belief is well entrenched among the so-called intelligencia in America, and among the so-called liberals in Washington.”

 

Packard cites some of the reasons why the federal government cannot do those things a private organization like the Salvation Army can do.

 

“One reason is that all too often federal anti-poverty programs are based on political expediency. Money goes where an influential Congressman thinks there are votes to be had. Of course, the Congress is not the only culprit – the money may go where a member of the Administration thinks it will be useful, rather than where it will be effective.”

 

Packard points to the Rural Legal Assistance Program, as an example of a federal program with a negative effect. “This program is based on the notion that certain classes of people are oppressed by the so-called “system” and need legal aid to fight back. This brings about the absurd situation in which the federal government supports attacks on the local government in the name of securing justice. I accept the fact that there may be isolated cases in which this procedure could result in the correction of an injustice – but these few instances do not justify the program as it has been conceived.

 

“People in the federal government can never know as much about the facts of a local situation as the local people. It is hard for me to see the value of a procedure which isolates the decision makers from the facts. In addition, handling matters in this manner does much to make people distrust their government.”

 

Packard gives more examples to support his conviction that “where a job can be done by volunteer efforts or by an independent organization – be it a private business firm or a public service organization such as the Salvation Army – it will be done better than if done by an agency of the federal government.”

 

“Let’s look at the current program for unemployment compensation and aid to dependent families. Both have strong built-in incentives not to work.”

 

Packard agrees there are cases where people do not have a job – and need and deserve help for their families. “In such cases I would much rather depend on the judgment of people interested in the local problem such as the members of the Salvation army who are on the scene and who can carefully and humanely assess the situation, than on the typical person in the Washington bureaucracy who probably does not know what it is all about, and more often than not is interested in helping his record rather than the people who need help.

 

“Another problem,” Packard says, “is that public welfare programs involve large amounts of money. Where there is big money there are always con men ready for the grab. You are all aware, I am sure, of situations where there have been unlawful diversions of funds.”

 

Packard commends the Army for its willingness to “toot your own horn.”

 

“Your singing at Christmas time, your uniforms, and many of your other activities attract attention to your cause and demonstrate that you are willing to acclaim to the public what you believe in.”

 

Packard says the Salvation Army’s willingness to go out in the streets is good. “By doing this, your members reap a twofold benefit. They are exposed directly and personally to the people they are trying to help. And secondly, they strengthen their personal commitment to solving the problems they encounter.”

 

“Your use of a uniform particularly interests me, having served in the Pentagon for three years. It seems to me that the uniform helps give members of an organization a sense of identity with their colleagues. I observed in the military that the best soldiers showed pride in their uniform – and that this pride in the uniform in turn turned into a kind of pride in the service.

 

Furthermore, the uniform brings your organization to the attention of others. And – in the case of the salvation Army, the armed services, and our police forces – the uniform reminds people of your willingness to forego fancy clothes and high salaries so you might better serve humanity.”

 

Packard diverges a moment saying, while he is on the subject of uniforms, that he would like to say a few words about the armed services. He says “our soldiers have been the victim of a continuing stream of vicious attacks on our campuses, in the media, and, even more distressingly, from many elected officials.”

 

“Many of these criticisms originate with disenchantment with the Vietnam war. But the military should not be made a scapegoat for policies handed down by civilian authorities. Scapegoating is particularly unjust to our soldiers since they are bound not to engage in political debate. Therefore, they cannot defend themselves.

 

“While serving in the Pentagon, I came to know a great many of the men and women in our armed services. I developed a high regard for their professionalism and their dedication. They are not the misfits or power-hungry martinets which their detractors picture them to be. On the contrary, they are dedicated people interested in developing their professional expertise and devoted to serving their country.”

 

“There is another group of Americans who have recently come under fire and which the Salvation Army, I would hope, can sympathize with.  I refer to those who feel that America has a commitment to the rest of the world, and who are criticized for holding this view. The Salvation long ago made a commitment to world-wide service. Today you serve in 70 countries. You understand the indivisibility of mankind. You understand that our many problems at home are no excuse for turning our backs on the rest of the world.

 

“Yet just this turning away from the world is what many politicians are today advocating. They advocate drastic cuts in defense spending. They advocate drastic cuts in foreign aid. They advocate, in effect, withdrawal from our commitments around the world.

 

“I say this is wrong. I say that internationalism is one of America’s greatest opportunities today. And it is through our substantial aid programs – both military and economic – as well as the efforts and contributions of the private business sector, that we will carry out our international obligations.

 

“I might add that those who want to withdraw from the world are living under an illusion. They believe that, by an act of will, we can discard our international ties and devote our full attention and resources to domestic problems.

 

“But America is not an island. America cannot be isolated from the rest of the world. Prosperity, democracy, and social justice cannot flourish at home if they do not exist abroad. Is it possible that our free institutions would be unaffected by the Soviet subjugation of western Europe? Is it possible that democracy in the United States would be unthreatened by a victorious Marxist tide sweeping through Latin America? I am sure you all know the answer to this question.”

 

Packard returns to the subject of private charities,  saying he would like to point out some strengths which both business and the Salvation Army bring to their charitable efforts.

 

“First, we are both interested in charity, because it is right, not because it will make us rich, or powerful, or more influential. Self-denial is a way of life with you. As individuals you each make an enormous financial sacrifice to spend your life in the Salvation Army. And as an organization you are also prepared to make sacrifices. I am reminded of your decision to lead the way in the formation of the U.S.O. at the outset of World War II. You knew you would be passing up an opportunity to expand your influence, and yet you supported the U.S.O. concept. And, You did it for a simple reason: it was the right thing to do. For your self-sacrifice, millions of American servicemen are thankful.

 

“And businessmen – while they cannot claim to make the some sacrifice that you in the Army do – they do charitable work without ulterior motives. The businessman who spends his evenings telephoning to raise money for a hospital or coaching a little league team does this because it is right – not because it will get him anything.”

 

“Second, both business and the Salvation Army understand how vital effective administration is to any successful attack on human suffering. The Salvation Army has patterned itself after that great model of administrative organization, the Army. And, business structures its charitable activities along the same highly efficient lines it has worked our for its day-to-day business operations.

 

“By contrast, the welfare activities in the public sector – particularly at the federal level – often are poorly organized. They are plagued with overlapping areas of authority, excessive layers of command, and lack of a well-developed sense of obedience.”

 

Continuing with his description of the similarities of business and the Salvation Army charitable activities, Packard says “both business and the Salvation Army are flexible in their approach to meeting social problems. Adaptability is almost an article of faith with the businessman. He is trained to be sensitive to changing human needs as expressed in the marketplace. Once he turns his attention to social problems, he becomes quickly attuned to changing patterns of social needs.

 

“Your changing approaches to drug addicts, alcoholics, and unwed mothers are just three examples of how you have grown with the times. But changing with the times does not mean chasing after fads. And we in business and you in the Salvation Army are often able to act more independent than people in the public sector. The politician seeking votes or the bureaucrat seeking funding must be closely attuned to what Ralph Nader’s latest pronouncement was, or what the latest environmental fad is. We can be more detached in our appraisal of what needs to be done and what can be done.

 

“I am frequently asked by businessmen friends about what sort of social involvement they should pursue – getting minorities integrated into the economy, working for better plant conditions, cleaning up the environment, hiring veterans, or whatever. I almost invariably tell them: be a good neighbor: do what you can do best.

 

“If you run a large plant in a depressed section of town, perhaps you should set up a manpower retraining program. On the other hand, if your firm is setting up a plant in a prosperous suburban area, extra money might better be spent on raising the architectural and landscape standards of your plant.

 

“The Salvation Army has been a pacesetter for 100 years. Long before the politicians discovered and publicized these trouble areas in our society, you knew that life was wretched for many, and that what was needed was both spiritual and material help. You knew that blacks and other minority groups needed guidance and encouragement. You knew that unwed mothers needed help, and not social rejection. You knew that all people in trouble – the rejected, the dejected, and the downtrodden of all kinds – were, after all, human beings who needed above all else human compassion.

 

“You men and women of the Salvation Army have set a noble standard for all Americans. If we can follow in your footsteps, America and the world will be a better home for all of us.

 

“Thank you.”

 

9/14/72, Copy of printed invitation to the Salvation Army “Annual Civic Luncheon Meeting”

9/14/72, Printed time schedule of events at the luncheon

9/14/72, Typewritten note listing seating arrangements at the head table

9/14/72, Copy of printed booklet titled “What is The Salvation Army?”

9/14/72, Copy of booklet describing Army activities and organization in the Bay Area

9/14/72, News clipping from the Palo Alto Times covering Packard’s speech

5/31/72, Letter from Lt. Col. Robert J. Angel to Packard inviting him to be the guest speaker at their annual luncheon

7/28/72, Letter to Packard from Lt. Col. Robert J. Angel  giving background on the Army

8/23/72, Letter to Packard from Lt. Col. Angel discussing more details for the luncheon

9/11/72, Letter to Packard from Lt. Col. Angel sending a draft of the program for the luncheon, and a listing of seating at the head table

9/14/72, Letter to Packard from Marjorie D. Sheffield, Executive Director, USO, complimenting Packard on his speech

9/18/72, Letter to Packard from Bernice M. Hemphill, Executive Director, Irwin Memorial Blood Bank, complimenting him on his speech

9/18/72, Letter to Packard from Lt. Col. Angel thanking Packard for participating in their luncheon

9/18/72, Letter to Packard from Lt. Col. Angel enclosing a clipping from the SF Examiner covering the Army luncheon. It contains a quote from the Army’s PR Director to the effect that Packard’s speech was too political. Co. Angel says this was not what she said and they agree with Packard’s remarks.

9/21/72, Copy of a letter from Packard to Co. Angel saying he should not be concerned with the Examiner’s article.

10/3/72, Letter to Packard from Alden P. Stanton thanking Packard for speaking at the Salvation Army luncheon

 

 

Box 3, Folder 35 – General Speeches

 

December 8-9, 1972, AIAA/NABE Seminar, Los Angeles

 

12/8/72, Typewritten text of Packard’s speech, with extensive handwritten inserts by Packard

 

The theme of this two day conference is “Reorienting the Aerospace Industry to Changing National Priorities.” Packard titled his speech “Should the Aerospace Industry Reorient to Changing Priorities,”  and he quickly makes it clear that he has “some reservations about the theme of this conference, and so in a sense I am appearing as the Devil’s Advocate.”

 

“Packard’s handwritten insert at this point reads: “My doubts are not whether some priorities might be changed but more as to how to do it. Senator Tunney  this morning [spoke?] to favor Federal subsidies – what he called a NASA approach to some of our domestic problems – crime, health, transportation. I don’t subscribe to the Federal subsidy approach. I simply think you will have a better industry in the long run if as you go into new markets you have to compete with those industries that are already there.

 

Packard says he agrees that the aerospace industry must change with the times. But what he takes exception to, and what he sees as the “proposal before this conference is that the Aerospace industry should do more than change with the times. What is proposed is that the aerospace industry should make a concentrated effort to move into new fields and new markets different from those in which the industry has been involved in the past.”

 

Packard agrees that the aerospace industry has a severe problem because of cutbacks in defense spending, plus leveling off of the demand for commercial aircraft, but he is “not at all sure that this problem can be solved, or even alleviated for the industry by trying to move into new product and new market areas.

 

“The Aerospace industry has had some great triumphs. It has also had some disastrous failures. This leads into the second argument which again I believe is wrong.

 

“The second argument is that because of its great triumphs in space and aerospace the industry has unique qualifications to do other difficult tasks. As your chairman put the issue in his introduction, the Aerospace industry, with its advanced technology base and sophisticated managerial and systems analysis technique, is well qualified to meet the challenges of the future.

 

“I have trouble with both of these propositions.

 

Packard says there “will not be any major increases in federal funding of defense and aerospace programs in the foreseeable future.”

 

“The challenge for the Aerospace industry in respect to national security, then, is to produce for America more defense capability at lower cost.”

 

The overall problem of national security can probably be solved with lower levels of military manpower. But if America is to remain strong we cannot have both lower levels of manpower and inferior weapons.

 

“Thus, I come to the conclusion that the most important responsibility and opportunity for the Aerospace industry, in respect to National Security, is to do the job that it is capable of doing and doing it right. Your responsibility in your industry is to develop and build the weapons that only you know how to build, and to do so with greater efficiency and greater economy than you have done in the recent past.”

 

“Defense budgets will be lower in the future in terms of real dollars. The need for military capability will not go away. You people in the Aerospace industry have one of the greatest challenges of the century against which to apply your so-called ‘great sophisticated management and systems analysis capabilities.’ Frankly, I think you may have to get rid of some of these ‘sophisticated management and systems analysis capabilities’ and fall back on some good old-fashioned common sense management techniques if indeed you are to do the job for the country that must be done.

 

“The only way an industry can produce better weapons at lower cost is with fewer people. That, in my view is what you in this industry will have to face up to. I am convinced, after spending three years in the Pentagon, that the industry is grossly over staffed and very inefficient by any sound management standards.”

 

Packard places part of the blame on “some of the so called ‘experts’ in the Pentagon, but says the Aerospace industry can do better – “in fact, you must do better in responding to what will continue to be your main priority.”

 

Another handwritten insert at this point reads: “Secretary Hansen talked about some of the things we tried to do while I was at the Pentagon to improve the efficiency – I sincerely believe the industry can do a better job, but again let me emphasize –this will require even fewer people and will not help the matter you are worrying about here.

 

As to people, I do believe a more effective effort could be mounted to retrain, reorient and relocate people – and in fact, it may be a better approach to encourage other industries to take advantage of technology by absorbing some of the technical talent from Aerospace.”

 

Packard accepts as accurate the claim that the Aerospace industry has a great store of advanced technology. “Our magnificent air transportation system is based solidly on fine contributions from the Aerospace industry. In turn, this fine accomplishment can be largely attributed to research paid for over the hears from the defense budget. Weather satellites and satellite communication have come from federally financed space and defense research, and satellite communication in particular is a new priority of great importance for the future.“

 

“Commercial jet aircraft began as simple modifications of military jet aircraft, and it is interesting to speculate where we might be with commercial aviation had there been no requirement for military jet aircraft of comparable size and performance. Or as a corollary, how bright the prospects for an American SST might be if the SST could evolve as a simple modification of the B1 bomber.”

 

These and other contributions from the Aerospace industry have been, Packard says, “rather natural expansion of advanced technology into new markets which were logical and natural for the Aerospace industry. In most other cases where aerospace technology has contributed to old or established markets, other industries with experience in those markets have simply picked up the advanced technology of the Aerospace industry and applied it themselves.

 

“With the notable exception of the commercial airline industry, which grew up hand in hand with the Aerospace industry, the record of applying the so-called ‘sophisticated management and systems analysis technique’ by the aerospace industry to new fields is not very good.”

 

Looking for some examples, Packard points to the shipbuilding industry, which he says was far behind in technology and adhered to what many considered to be antiquated management principles….This great opportunity was siezed [sic] upon by several of the largest, and until then the most successful of the Aerospace firms. What happened? So far, all of the sophisticated management and system analysis techniques were ineffective in an area where the firms had no previous experience. They simply did not know the business.”

 

Another handwritten insert: “And this brings out a point which Dr. Moor alluded to this morning. The Aerospace industry does not have the marketing capability needed for other market areas. I believe the point is even broader than that – every industry has built up over the years a great deal of special know how unique to that industry. Aerospace may bring some new and useful know how to a new industry. There will be much old and necessary know how it does not have. And this fact must be recognized as new areas are considered.,

 

“In the case of shipbuilding, the one firm which did know something about the business may work its problems out. General Dynamics, which had considerable shipbuilding experience in its Electric Boat Division, may eventually salvage something out of its expansion into a non-aerospace field.”

 

“Examples of the Aerospace industry with its great management talent expanding by the conglomerate route do not give much credence to the theme that the Aerospace industry has much to offer in new and different fields either. I can think of some aerospace companies which are now better off after having been taken over by non-aerospace companies. I am hard put to think of many non-aerospace companies that are better off after having been taken over by aerospace companies.
I believe it is time for you people to call a spade a spade and admit that the first priority of the Aerospace industry is to get its house in order and not go charging into new fields. The industry does not yet know how to build complex reliable equipment at a reasonable cost. The industry can build complex equipment which is reliable when there are no constraints on cost. The Apollo program is a magnificent example of what can be done, and there are some equally impressive defense programs.

 

“Most of the defense development and procurement programs, however, have not produced the kind of equipment the industry can be very proud of. Most of our current military aircraft can fly only a few hours without a system failure. The development process in the industry is so slow and inefficient that most new systems are out of date by the time they go into the inventory.

 

Another handwritten insert reads: “Now, as I have already suggested, these problems of the Aerospace industry can not be blamed on the industry alone. The industry had to do what its major customer asked for and its major customer was not always very smart in its demands. Underbidding has been encouraged, which was a major factor in cost [over runs?]  – overly complex equipment – production without adequate test of the design. The industry has some bad habits which will have to be unlearned before it will be able to compete efficiently in new areas.

 

“We have a good example of what has happened when aerospace techniques are applied to ground transportation in the Bay Area Rapid Transportation (BART) system. This system was designed around computers and other aerospace type system technology. After a few weeks of operation one of the trains ran off the end of the track. The program is far behind schedule and the cost overruns are substantial, and there are other serious problems. In short, BART has most of the characteristics of many recent products of the Aerospace industry – such as the C-5A.

 

“You in the Aerospace industry have only one priority, that is to learn how to do the job you are supposed to be doing and do it right. Learn how to build reliable equipment at a reasonable cost. Stop looking to the government to bail you out when you fail to do your job.

 

“I am convinced the serious problems which the Aerospace industry has are largely related to the fact that this industry has been and still is too dependant on the government. And I judge what is being suggested here today is that the government should support the industry involvement into new fields. I have no trouble with the concept of expansion into new fields if the industry is willing to submit to the rigid disciplines of the marketplace in doing so.
The worst possible thing for the Aerospace industry would be for the federal government to subsidize its ‘reconversion’ into domestic markets. This would assure the continuation of the waste and inefficiency which is the real problem of the industry.

 

“On the other hand if you can go it on your own and learn to compete in the real world, more power to you. Some of you can, and some of you can’t.

 

“And so I will conclude by answering the question I have posed in the title of my presentation. Should the Aerospace industry reorient to new priorities.? The answer is yes to the extent it can demonstrate by its performance that it can do so. The answer is no if the industry must seek subsidies from the government to survive. Government subsidies to help the industry reconvert to new priorities will not help its survival  – it will only postpone its failure. This is my solid belief, and I urge you to give consideration to these thought as you set your course for the future.”

 

12/8/72, Typewritten copy of the program for the AIAA/NABE Seminar

12/8/72, Printed copy of the program

12/8/72, Copy of one page of the program with handwritten notation on back by Packard – no doubt with thoughts occurring to him as he heard others speak

12/8/72, Copy of speech given at the Seminar by Grant L. Hansen Ass’t. Secretary of the Air Force Research and Development

 

9/18/72, Letter to Packard from W. H. Pickering, Director JPL, giving details on the Seminar

10/12/72, Letter to Packard from Don Wendling giving more details of the Seminar

11/13/72, Letter to Packard from G. Russell Morrissey, giving the time for Packard’s speech and asking for the title of Packard’s speech

12/15/72, Letter to Packard from Michael Witunski asking for a copy of Packard’s speech

12/18/72, Letter to Packard from H. K. Gagos providing copies of newspaper clippings

1/16/73, Handwritten letter to Packard from Paul K. Adams taking exception to Packard’s speech

2/1/73, Letter to Packard from George Johnson complimenting him on his speech on the Aerospace industry

2/1/73, Letter to Packard from James McGuire asking for a copy of Packard‘s speech

2/1/73, Letter to Packard from A. L. Barnes saying he is an employee of McDonnell-Douglas and asking for a copy of Packard’s speech. He also encloses a clipping from the St. Louis Post-Dispatch covering the speech

2/9/72, Copy of a letter from Packard to Mr. A. L. Barnes replying to his letter of 2/1/72 and saying “I note you are an employee of McDonnell-Douglas, and I want you to know that I believe your firm has done an outstanding job over the years and is not subject to many of the criticisms I have made about the industry in general.”

2/27/73, Letter to Packard from John F. Bishop complimenting Packard on the speech

 

News Clippings

12/11/72, Copy of clipping from Los Angeles Times with headline “Packard Hits Inefficiency of Aerospace Industry

12/12/72, Copy of clipping from Palo Alto Times with headline “Heads may roll in aerospace

Undated, unnamed clipping headed “Packard: Aerospace overstaffed, inefficient”

 

Box 2, Folder 25 – Department of Defense

 

January 12, 1972, Army Project Managers Conference

 

1/12/72, Typewritten text of Packard’s speech.

 

Speaking to a group of Army project managers Packard tells them that the Services must do a better job, and that the Office of the Secretary of Defense can’t do it for them. He adds “I assume the purpose of this conference is to discuss what you can do to improve the way this job is done in the Army.”

 

Packard says that “…we do not believe we have necessarily discovered or laid out for your consideration the best of all possible policies in all details. I do believe that if the policies we have outlined are followed, a better job can be done in future than has been done in past.

 

“The first step in improving management is always to put a better man in charge and give him the authority to discharge the responsibility you have given him.”

 

“A manager must know and understand what his responsibility is – what is expected of him – and this often requires a wide range of discussion – communication we often call it.”

 

As an example, Packard says “The manager is naturally expected to manage the development of the new weapons system for which he is responsible so it will have the highest possible performance, be available at the lowest possible cost, and all within the shortest possible time. The first fact of life we must learn to accept is that these parameters cannot be rigidly specified at the beginning of a project.

 

“There must be trade-offs made in the parameters involved, and cost must be one of those parameters in the equation.

 
“The problem is that all too many times cost is the only variable, the performance and the schedule are fixed and only the cost is allowed to change.

 

“When a project is structured this way, the cost will, in fact, almost always change and the direction will always be up.

 

“The project manager must be allowed to let other variables than the cost change. I hope, in fact, you can learn to manage programs to keep cost within a ceiling. To do so trade-offs of other parameters must be accepted.”

 

“Packard says that he has reviewed many projects over the past three years, and he has concluded that “…often disaster has been built into the program at the beginning because the first decisions were not made right….”[This means] several things. First, the new weapon that is proposed must fit into long-range planning and has at least a reasonable prospect of being developed and procured with resources which are likely to be available.”

 

“This aspect of – make the first decision right – hardly comes within the project manager’s responsibility – but there are some other aspects of – make the first decision right – that do.

 

“Is the project as proposed really feasible – are we asking for too much performance – are we out too far in new technology – have the uncertainties been eliminated or at least defined and minimized before a major commitment to the project is undertaken.

 

“Do we have the right kind of a contract.

 

“Have we made honest cost estimates or do we have a buy-in.

 

“These are all aspects of what I mean by saying – make the first decision right. You project managers have a great stake in this issue because – no matter how good a manager you may be you will look bad if the project is not started on a sound basis.

 

Packard agrees initial questions are difficult and often cannot be resolved by paper studies alone. “To the extent the design can be reduced to operating hardware it will be much more likely that two of the key questions can be answered with much more certainty.

 

“Is this really what we want for our forces – will it add significant capability and thus be worth the investment.

“Can a practical design be achieved which can be produced at a reasonable cost.

 

“I conclude that many programs will be improved by more use of development hardware, tested before full-scale development and production is committed.

 

“The fly before you buy concept includes more use of development prototypes, there is another equally important aspect. The full-scale development should be completed before major investment in production is made. I am sure all of you who have been through a program realize that some investment in production may be appropriate before the development models are tested and approved. Urgency to have the new operational capability in the forces is often given as a reason to accept concurrency between development and production. This may be a valid reason in time of crisis or in wartime, …and I believe experience will support the fact that it is always more costly. Many contractors will try to make a case otherwise, but I do not believe it can be done if we accept the need to make some production investment – tooling – production processes – perhaps the better way to put it – keep the production build-up to an absolute minimum until all the bugs are shaken out of the design.”

 

Packard mentions some other things that must be given attention in striving toward better management.

 

“Training and development for managers.

 

“Management is a profession – not a two-year tour of duty.

 

“Organizational structure has a considerable impact on creating an environment for better management.

 

“Not everyone has to be in on everything is something that must be emphasized at all levels – especially the OSD offices.

 

“Let me conclude by saying again – if there is to be a record of better management on army projects in the future, you are the people who will have to do the job. If you are to do the job, you will have to be supported fully by your supervisors and by the OSD offices. You will have to take some heat from congress when you know you are right. For example, there are some programs where a cost type contract is the only way the development can be done right. You will have to find some way not to accept the low bid when it is obviously a buy-in. There will be some tough issues to face – but there is no such thing as good management unless it is tough-minded management. I am confident you men here today are up to the challenge.”

Box 3, Folder 8 – General Speeches

 

March 30, 1968. The Promise of America in Crisis, Challenge to the Leadership of the Communities, Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce conference for business and industrial leaders, Palo Alto CA.

This conference, under the auspices of the Chamber of Commerce, was intended to generate discussion of possible solutions to the problem of the under employed, disadvantaged people, particularly those living in East Palo Alto \. Packard was asked to be the keynote speaker and participate in a panel discussion .

 

3/30/68, Typewritten text of Packard’s speech with many notations by him in his handwriting.

 

Packard mentions several problems facing America , Viet Nam,  the Mid-East monetary policy, inflation or the problems of the disadvantaged, saying it is hard to know which is the most serious, much less know how to solve them. However, with the disadvantaged he says “…we can do something here because this is where the problem is. I want to make some general observations about the problem and suggest several courses of action for your consideration here today. I believe we have the opportunity here in the mid-peninsula to develop an exemplary solution to this problem. It will require more effort and more involvement on the part of everyone, but I believe it can – indeed, it must be done.”

 

Referring to Federal support programs for the disadvantaged, Packard says “…criticism has ranged all the way from too little control to too much control.

 

“Evaluating the programs and their critics, there is no doubt that Federal involvement has been constructive – that in addition to such substantive contributions as have been made, the Federal Government has helped to catalyze the private sector of the American Society into concern and action.

 

“We have at least reached the point where every important institution in America – Government, School Church, foundation, Business, Industry, Labor – wants to help in solving the problem of the minorities. Their reasons may be different, their approaches to the problem may be different, but they are all concerned and genuinely want to help. The forgotten man in the minority culture of America is certainly no longer forgotten.”

 

However, Packard acknowledges that “…it does not follow that every person involved in each of these institutions is so committed. There are generations of prejudice to overcome, and this cannot be done quickly.

 

“With a problem so complex, underlaid (sic) with traditional attitudes, biases, emotions – and compounded by the simple fact that it takes time for people to change their views, and their ways, and their feelings, I see no hope for a quick solution – but I see every hope for a substantial and continuous improvement.

 

“Whether the rate and the substance of the improvement will satisfy all those involved is very doubtful. The probability is of more violence for some time to come. It is not just a probability, it is a certainty – almost as sure as day follows night. This distressing fact must not, however, limit our resolve to proceed with the job at hand; indeed it should strengthen our resolve to get ahead with the job.”

 

As to advocates of “Black Power” and separatism Packard refers to a quote attributed to Francis Bacon to the effect that :Knowledge is Power.” If that is what the Black Power leaders mean, I am with them. If, on the other hand, they mean power in terms of the primitive law of the jungle, they will only hinder progress and do their people a great disservice.

 

As to a separate Negro society there are pros and cons. There is a great human imperative to be in control of one’s destiny. This aspiration certainly translates to groups of people, encouraging people with common interests to band together in support of the common cause. Why not, then, encourage Negros (sic) to establish their own society, and let their destiny by determined by their own efforts? I think the answer to this is very simple. The white society in America has such a head start that the Negro would have a very difficult time if he did not share in the wealth and benefits of the American Society as a whole….The idea of a separate society is an emotional response. Though understandable, it is completely unrealistic.”

 

Focusing on the local problem, Packard says “The most important thing I can say is that I believe we have the opportunity to produce an exemplary solution to the problems of the disadvantaged right here in our own back yard. We have the resources – education, jobs, human understanding – in better measure than almost any community in the country. If we fail it is only because we lack the will.

 

“I am delighted that the Palo Alto Chamber has called this conference to study and attack these problems. I would like to suggest a number of propositions which I believe will help us move ahead in the job at hand.

 

#1. We must begin with the proposition that this job cannot be done without much more effort and involvement on the part of everyone. To put it squarely – every business, every industry, every union, indeed, every person must do more than has been done so far.

 

#2.  We must all understand that the job cannot be done over night. We must ask for a degree of patience from the people we are trying to help; we must insist on a high degree of urgency from everyone else in the community.

 

#3.  Because there are so many people interested we must do a better job of coordinating the efforts in this area. I hope from this meeting here today will come some action toward a better coordination of the effort of all the institutions and people who are involved.

 

#4. Because jobs are the foundation on which all else will be built, we must muster an all-out effort to get more of these people in meaningful jobs as soon as possible.

 

#5.  Although emphasis recently has been placed on finding jobs for the “hard core” unemployed and the “drop out” youth, we must not distort our judgment against those who have tried. Heads of families should have first priority, of course. Then high school graduates should be given preference on the theory that if a high school diploma in fact earns a job, there will be more high school diplomas.

 

#6. After these steps have been achieved – singly or simultaneously – ways must be found to employ more of the so called “hard core”. This will require considerable effort.

 

#7.  Although initial employment and training will require extra effort, in the long run achievement standards cannot be lowered. To lower standards will place the business firms at a competitive disadvantage, and reduce their ability to provide jobs for anyone in the future.

 

#8.  In addition to finding jobs with business and industrial firms in the area, encouragement should be given to the establishment and support of minority owned and managed firms. These firms will not only provide much-needed jobs, but will add to the confidence of minority people and their pride in their own ability.”

 

Packard hopes that “…every employer in the community will find a way to accommodate a larger proportion of disadvantaged people into his work force in the future than he has in the past. And I hope the unions will cooperate in this endeavor. This may mean changes in hiring standards. This certainly will require more understanding – more thoughtful training – more effort on everyone’s part. The name of this game is to extend yourself in firing and training, but not to lower your standards of job performance because that will jeopardize your competitiv3 position, and therefore the future success and growth of your company.

 

“I believe it is important for disadvantaged people seeking jobs to understand this very important economic fact of life. Business and industry do not create jobs; they provide the opportunity for people to work and produce something some one else wants. If the employees produce a superior product, more people will want the product and more jobs will be generated. If the employees produce an inferior product – or service – no one will want it, and that firm will have no more jobs. So, while private business can do a better of hiring and training undereducated under-trained people, private business cannot provide jobs for them in the long run unless standards of quality, production, and service are maintained that are necessary for the survival and success of the business.

 

Packard says he believes the government’s recent emphasis on employment of the “hard core” minority , while worthy, “overlooks some basic considerations. It is generally agreed that education is the most secure path to progress. Over the past few years, when these problems of minority unemployment have been brought into focus, there have been thousands of jobs available – for those with the right training and education. Clearly, more education would be of immense help in alleviating these problems. Sometimes I think this particular problem is a failure of our educational system more than anything else.

 

“While the problem is complex, one reaches the conclusion that motivation is a key factor. There is the question of the home surroundings and many other discouraging environmental factors, but it remains as a fact that any minority youngster can obtain a good education and be a success in the American Society if properly motivated.”

 

“It is important – very important – then as we seek to help those who have not made the grade, that we also encourage those who have. This says that we must put our first emphasis not in helping the drop outs, gut in helping those who have had the will and determination to get an education. To make sure the rewards for their effort are both real and visible.

 

“I hope, then, that we can find a way in this community to assure every Negro high school graduate, and every Spanish American high school graduate, that he or she will either have a good job opportunity or will have an opportunity to go on to college.”

 

“This matter is so vital that I hope the community can pup special emphasis on summer jobs for high school students. What better incentive could there be for a young person to work at his high school education than to know that by doing so he would be assured of a good summer job, or a good permanent job after graduation – or go to college.”

 

“While this and other efforts should reduce…and in the short run eliminate, this drop out problem…we have some short term considerations relating to drop outs.

 

“The drop outs of the past cannot be completely overlooked, even if we can keep them in school in the future. This suggests that business and industry should do what they can providing jobs, training and education to help bring some of these so-called “hard core” people back into the mainstream of American Society.”

 

Summing up Packard says “The order of priority providing jobs is then as follows:

 

# 1.  Those with a family to support, a home to maintain, because the home environment is the true foundation on which the future is built for every person – regardless of race, creed, or culture. I understand there are 641 families with dependent children numbering 2,036 on welfare. We certainly should be able to find that many jobs. Child care centers, transportation, welfare policies etc…..

 

#2.   Those who are taking advantage of the educational opportunities available to them. They deserve this recognition for their efforts and such recognition will provide a powerful incentive to motivate others to follow.

 

#3.  The so called “hard core” unemployed and the “drop outs”. Even though they have not availed themselves of educational and other opportunities, they deserve a second chance. In fact, for one reason or another, they may not even have had a first chance. It is probably not possible to get these people back in [the] educational system and here business and industry can help.

 

“I would hope we might, here in this area, provide job opportunities for all of these groups. If we can do so I believe it can demonstrate that Negros (sic), Spanish Americans and other disadvantaged groups are a part and parcel of American Society and can be counted on to do more than their share in helping us build a community with true equal opportunity for all. Each of you here today has a great responsibility and a great opportunity to help translate the American Dream from vision into reality.”

 

 

 

1/26/68 Letter to Packard from Joseph Ehrlich, confirming the agreement that Packard will be the keynote speaker at the conference sponsored by the Chamber of Commerce.

3/15/68, Letter to Packard from Rev. Carl A. Smith thanking him for agreeing to participate in the Conference of Business and Industrial Leaders. He attaches a copy of the program.

3/27/68, Internal HP memorandum to Packard from Ray Wilbur, VP Personnel, giving some background and thoughts on the program. He attaches a copy of a speech by John Gardner, former Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare.

3/27/68, Internal HP memo to Packard and Ray Wilbur from J. A. Barr, giving a progress on the project known as EPA Electronics, Inc.

4/2/68, Letter to Packard from Rev. Carl A. Smith expressing appreciation for Packard’s participation in the conference.

4/5/68, Copy of a letter from Packard to Joseph Ehrlich expressing the thought that the conference seemed to be worthwhile, but there remains “a problem of follow up.”

To do this Packard suggests a group be formed to contact local businesses individually.

Copy of an undated letter to Allan Brown from Joseph Ehrlich with a cc to Packard with some suggestions on steps to implement a plan.

 

 

Box 3, Folder 9 – General Speeches

 

April 19, 1968, Keynote Speaker, International Business Scene and Minority Race Problems, Rotary International of Northern California, Palo Alto CA

 

4/19/68, Typewritten copy of Packard’s speech – in outline format.

 

“So many interesting things – international scene. World in turmoil. Vietnam. Focus on what is U.S. role in world.

 

“…U.S. has had role in international leadership last two decades unsurpassed in history.

 

“Our leadership rehabilitated Europe.

“Japan position great economic strength and progress.

 

“Stabilized balance free world and Communist world.

 

“Here at home greatest prosperity. 20 billion GNP growth firsts quarter – 800 billion.

 

“In a year or two we add to our economy an increment equal to total economy of France or England.

 

“Amid prosperity – more of everything for everybody – even poor than any prior society.

 

“Greatest social turmoil in history of country. We are in midst of one of the great revolutions of history.

“Bad news – Good news

 

Pilot comes on speaker – Bad news – visibility zero. None of navigational instruments are working. We don’t know where we are. We don’t know where we are going.

 

Good news – 500 knot tail wind. Get there ahead of schedule.”

 

“With your permission comment about two aspects  of this great national crisis.

Monetary and fiscal crisis and relationship to World Trade.

Observation on minority problems.

 

“The crisis in United States monetary and fiscal affairs is simply the strength of the dollar – despite what the advocates of a gold standard say – the dollar is in fact the monetary standard of the free world. If the dollar should fail in this role, we would find ourselves confronted with a world-wide economic panic.

 

Undermine U. S. role in world leadership

Undermine ability to solve domestic problems

 

“Let me attempt to outline the problem in simple terms. In the years following the war, we spent billions of dollars overseas helping Europe – Japan – recover from the ravages of the war and in stabilizing the position of the Free World vs. Communist countries. These dollars were welcome abroad – many were returned to buy products from U.S.

 

“As Europe and Japan reached position of economic stability their need for dollars lessened. Yet we continued to pour billions more into the international monetary system. From 1958 to 1960 the average was 3.7 billion per year.

 

Aid – Military – Tourism

 

We get  some back – Merchandise trade

 

“Many countries simply had more dollars than they needed and they returned them to us in exchange for gold. The government became concerned – first voluntary program and other actions and reduced outflow but have been unable to bring to low enough balance.

 

“Agreements with banks to hold dollars

 

“We do not have enough gold to cover – raised price – economies of other free world dependent on confidence in dollar.

 

“We are reasonably safe as long as purchasing power of dollar in U.S. remains stable.

 

“Sly Fowler – money can be sound at home and in trouble abroad – but money cannot be sound abroad and in trouble at home – our economy too large

 

1. Must control balance of payment problems

 

3.9 billion 1960

1.3  billion 1965

3.5 – 4 billion 1967

 

1. Must get monetary and fiscal problems at home under control.

 

“What are elements of balance of payments problem?

1.   Vietnam

1.  Other military commitments – We could get out of Europe – Creditability – Vietnam

 

1. Tourism – 1 billion

 

1. Merchandise trade balance

 

Trade balance

Large

Dependent on two-way trade

U.S. industry is competitive abroad in many areas

Total exports from Calif. (?)

1.2  billion 1966  ¼ Agricultural

 

“In view of importance of our merchandise trade balance

International quota war would be disastrous

“Stability of dollar at home

“Federal deficits – inflation wage settlements

“When government asks us to support programs – important

“Cannot support Vietnam – war on poverty – space program

 

“Those of you who have influence with anyone in Washington should help

Tax increase will help

Late

Corporate

Individual

“Mail from home against taxes – for quotas – for more of everything

 

“Word about minority problems

 

“Must resolve our ultimate goal

 

“One nation indivisible – all blacks and all whites working together – equality and brotherhood for all or polarized black against white in peripheral strife

 

“Events of past two weeks may have increased polarization

 

“Difficulty compounded by subversive elements – aim not unity but destruction of our country

 

Confrontation of Black Student Union at Stanford

Sympathy with concern

Polarization – White Plaza event

Confrontation of Payton Jordan by Harry Edwards

 

“We are undertaking positive program. Has been underway

 

“Applicants increased three times in last several years

 

“Programs of assistance will be continued

“If Black Student Union leaders persist in efforts to isolate black from white at Stanford, it will defeat the purposes of the University.

 

“Administration, faculty, white students cooperating with black enable them to fully integrate into life of University.

 

“This is the problem for all of us who want to help in our areas of responsibility.

 

“Actions which will help integrate black people into structure of society with equality and brotherhood

“Difficult because subversive elements are in control in many areas – make sure you know who these people are in your community. Help the large group that deserves help.

 

“We are faced with some touchy problems

“ Understanding – and involvement – we can make progress.”

 

 

 

 

4/19/68, Outline of speech handwritten by Packard

1/23/68, Letter to Packard from Jack B. Power expressing appreciation for Packard’s participation in speaking at their luncheon. Says they expect about 500 to attend.

4/19/68, Printed copy of program of Rotary 30^th annual conference

5/13/68, Copy of letter from Packard to Jack Power thanking for sending him some cuff links.

 

 

Box 3, Folder 10 – General Speeches

 

April 22, 1968, Congratulation to PG&E Scholarship Winners, PG&E  personnel and scholarship winners, San Francisco, CA

 

4/22/68, Typewritten text of speech.

 

Packard is speaking to an audience of high school students and he tells them he was “…thinking about what I might say of interest to you tonight and realizing that young people are properly concerned, or at least interested in what kind of a world their world will be, I tried to recall in my mind the state of the world 38 years ago when I was looking forward to graduation from high school in 1930. – Pueblo, Colorado –

 

“Radio broadcasting, which began in the early 1920s, was just coming into its own. One of my hobbies was amateur radio, and I had been building radios for a number of years. Many families in our neighborhood did not have a radio. Television was still some time away.

 

“Automobiles had become a major factor in our lives but many streets and highways were not yet paved.

 

“Lindbergh had made his famous flight across the ocean only a few years earlier. The airmail was coming into Pueblo in a two-place biplane from Denver. It was to be ten years before I made a cross country flight in a DC3 – it took nearly 24 hours. By comparison in the first three months of this year I have flown to New York 5 times, Europe once, Chicago 2 times, and a few other places like Boston, Washington, Dallas and Denver in between.

 

“Although our family was very healthy, an infection of any kind often required a week or more in bed. Pneumonia and other infections diseases were often fatal. No one dreamed that surgery would ever be possible, let alone the possibility of transplanting a heart or a kidney.

 

“There was no television, no radar, no garbage disposals, few plastics except celluloid and hard rubber. I remember hearing about a new plastic called bakelite when I was in high school. For the ladies there was no nylon though there were a few synthetic textile materials.

 

“I decided while I was in high school I wanted to be an engineer and I read all of the technical magazines I could obtain. The library in Pueblo had only about a dozen volumes on electricity and chemistry, all of which I read several times.

 

“We had heard of Einstein’s equation and the possibility of converting matter into energy, but no one dreamed it would be possible so soon I am sure we knew that fossil fuels were limited – there was talk about solar energy – but certainly the thought never crossed our young minds in those days that there would be unlimited energy in our lifetime which could be directed to unlimited good or unlimited evil.”

 

Packard tells of having been asked what the Hewlett-Packard Company will been doing ten years hence. He says he responded by saying that “10 years ago I could not have told you what we would be doing today, and I am unable to tell you what new products we will be showing our stockholders. I am certain, however, that there are just as many important things to be done today as there were 10 years ago, and I can say for sure …in 10 years there will certainly be more yet to be done, even though I can’t tell you just exactly what that will be.

 

And Packard tells his young audience that “Although much has been accomplished in the 38 years since I was your age, there is more knowledge – more ability – more resources – and the next 38 years are certain to be as challenging and as exciting for you as the past 38 have been for me.

 

“But you say yes there has been material progress and there will certainly be more – what about the other things – urban problems, riots – Vietnam – starvation of people in a world where food is thrown away or deliberately not produced. Has the world really made any progress in the past 38 years in these areas – or is it in fact in the worst condition in its history?”

 

Packard admits this is not an easy question to answer. “We know we can produce electricity more efficiently – we can make accurate measurements. We know people have more money – even the poor, and even after we allow for inflation. Whether more people are happier – whether better off, etc is hard to evaluate.”

 

Packard remembers the world of 1930 as “…reasonable calm and hopeful. There had been the crash in Wall Street – people lost jobs and things were very difficult, but I didn’t sense great despair. On the world scene there had been considerable progress in disarmament. There was the World Court – and after all, America had entered World War I to make the world safe for democracy. On closer examination, however, there was very much the same kind of turmoil all over the world then that there is today. There had been very bloody labor strife in Colorado a few years earlier. Two or three years later there were reports of Japanese military action in china. We began shortly to hear about a man names Hitler in Germany and Mussolini in Italy. I recall stories of the communists in Russia. The Bolsheviks going through a crowd and shooting on the spot any person who did not have callused hands and who was therefore not a working man.

 

“It is clear to me that in close examination there was just about as much turmoil in thee world in those days as there is today. We decry horrors of Vietnam, but World War II was no humane endeavor.

 

“There is however, one big difference. We read about these things in newspapers or in magazines. Some were on newsreels in the theaters, but we did not have on-the-spot television nowhere near the thorough news coverage. We simply were not anywhere near as aware of the social and political problems of the world as you young people are today. – We knew about them, but they seemed remote.

 

“As I think about these matters – and what has happened in these areas over the past 38 years – I believe there has been substantial progress. I am certain the world is better today than 38 years ago. Clearly there is great opportunity for more progress, and I am pleased that so many young people today are dedicated to help bring it about.

 

“I would hasten to add, however, there will always be an opportunity for improvement in human and social affairs – just as there will always be opportunity for scientific discovery, inventions and new works of engineering.

 

“I am afraid Robert Frost was right when he said there is only one thing in this world we can be certain about – there will always be conflict and there will always be change. The problem is: how to minimize the conflict and how to make the change constructive and substantial. That is of course precisely the problem we face in our civil rights – minority problem here in America.

 

“Packard tells the students that as they go on into life they “…will have some of their ideas challenged – there will be conflict in your mind – you will find new fields of knowledge available to you – what you make of it will be up to you.

 

“We hear much today about the generation gap. You are at the age where you don’t understand your elders – probably some of you don’t even understand your parents. I can assure you that is one thing which really has not changed very much. I remember vividly one of the greatest things about coming to Stanford for me was that I would have a chance to get away from home. I assure you after being away I soon wanted to get back – I decided my parents weren’t so bad after all.

 

“I learned a little secret somewhere along the line I would like to share with you. Whatever you may think of this older generation of yours, we desperately want you to succeed. When we criticize it is only in the hope we can help you avoid the mistakes we have made. In particular I want to say to each of you – if you ever need help, don’t hesitate to ask. The Chairman and the President of this company would be flattered and pleased if they had the opportunity to help you in any way that might be useful.

 

“And regardless of what you think about the older generation, you have a responsibility to them – to make the future better than the past. You have a responsibility to your parents to grow up to be a person they will be proud of. But as David Starr Jordan once said, the person above all who you have a responsibility to is the person you will be 10 – 2 — 30 – years from now.

 

“Good luck and God bless you.

 

4/22/68, Text of speech handwritten by Packard.

4/4/68, Letter to Packard from Robert H. Gerdes, Chairman of the Board, PG&E, inviting Packard to speak to the winners of college scholarships.4/10/68, Copy of letter from Packard to Robert Gerdes saying he will “see if he can find something to say to the group.”

 

4/11/68, Letter to Packard from Robert Gros  expressing appreciation that Packard has agreed to speak and giving details of the evening.

 

 

 

Box 3, Folder 11 – General Speeches

 

November 20, 1968,  Dinner speaker, Herbert Hoover Memorial Boys Club of Menlo Park, Leading Citizens Dinner, Palo Alto CA

 

11/20/68, Typewritten text of Packard’s speech.

 

Packard says this event has great significance to him: first, because he had the good fortune to know Herbert Hoover during the last few years of his life, and “I know he put the Boys’ clubs high on his list of priorities. And secondly, “…this Boys’ Club is making a great contribution to the improvement in the lot of young people of the black community in our area.”

 

Packard then says he would like to say a few things about Herbert Hoover – “for whom this Boys’ is named. “In doing so I am not unaware that Herbert Hoover was a conservative. Many of our friends on the campus today would call him a reactionary. Many of today’s students would reject him – even though they don’t understand what he really stood for.

 

“I am afraid also that many of the black power advocates in East Palo Alto would reject Herbert Hoover and what he stood for, but in the end I predict that the solution to our minority problems will come only from better understanding of and acceptance of the things Herbert Hoover believed.”

 

And Packard lists some things Hoover believed:

Conservative – referred to liberals as “those left wingers”

Was respected by both Republicans and Democrats, and friend of several presidents from both parties.

 

Hoover loved fishing and encouraged boys to fish.

 

“He thought it very important that boys be close to nature.”

 

Referring to Hoover’s feeling that we should work toward a “strengthening if vision, curiosity and patience” in the mind of boys, Packard says “What a great contribution to the troubled times of today more vision would bring. And patience – our young people of today seem possessed with the idea that there are instant solutions to everything. I am a great advocate of the idea that young people should learn something about the world before they try to reform it.”

 

“Herbert Hoover had great love for his country. He once expressed it this way:

 

“I was a boy with nothing and this magnificent country of ours gave me my education and my opportunity. After I had made my competence – fortunately rather early in life – I wanted in turn to do something for my country.”

 

“And he spent the last 50 years of his life in service to his country.”

 

Herbert Hoover was one of the great men of this century. He was the product and the examplification [sic] of what we call the Puritan ethic. The Puritan ethic involved a strict code of morality, a belief in religion….Many of these ideas are rejected today – by young people – by people in the black community – even by people in the churches who are searching for new answers

 

“The young radicals and even some people who should know better say America is a sick society.
In the words of Eldridge Cleaver all religions are phony.

 

“The Puritan ethic is rejected by many minority people because these people have failed to obtain their fair share of the good things of an affluent society built on the Puritan ethic. They are not willing to trust their reward at some future time to a benevolent God in heaven – they want some of that reward now.

 

“And I think they are right in saying and believing something better must be done for them, and by them – and it must be done now. We don’t need a new philosophy – we need better application of the old.

 

“We have, here in our area, the Herbert Hoover Memorial Boys; Club. We also have the Nairobi Day School Teen Summer Project. Both of these groups are directed toward influencing the minds of the young people of this community toward their training and education.”

 

Packard says he has quoted from the philosophy of Hoover, and he would like to quote from the Nairobi Day School Teen Summer Project. He gives some quotes by young people who attended the Nairobi (East Palo Alto) Day School Project:

 

Here is a poem titled “Black is Beautiful” which Packard quoted:

“Black is who is always getting in fights

Black is who is now standing for their rights.

Black is the way you walk,

Black is the way you talk.

Black is the kind of food you eat,

Black is [who] the pigs like to beat.

Black is who was a slave,

Black is who pigs think don’t bathe.

Black is the way you wear your hair,

Black is at whom the pigs stare.

Black is the music you dig,

Black is the way you gig.

And I would like to say,

As I finish this poem today,

BLACK IS BEAUTIFUL……..”

 

Packard continues, “These are not the happy, care-free young people Mr. Hoover recalls. They are troubled. And we must be troubled when we hear what they say. But if one reads on, there is a clear ray of hope.” And Packard quotes another poem:

 

“EDUCATION”

 

“Education is what we need

To get along in this world,

In reading let us pick up speed.

Whether we are a boy or girl.

 

Math we need also in school

To develop our minds so blank,

But it’s better than pitching pennies or shooting pool,

So let’s not walk that plank.

 

Science is a necessary thing

To me and to others

So when our education bell rings,

Let’s help our sisters and brothers.”

 

“These are the young people of East Palo Alto. They are complaining about their lot – but behind the complaints is a new sense of pride – a dedication to education – a call for competence and responsibility. These are the activist young people speaking.

 

“Behind them is the vast majority who have faith in the American way as did Herbert Hoover.

 

“Since I have been involved in the minority problems of this area, I have had many communications – letters, phone calls, and discussions with people from the black community who do not agree with the black activist tactics. People who believe that the traditional values of our society are right. People who would agree with Herbert Hoover. They are the ones we must help – not just the activists who attract attention.

 

“I am convinced we must all work harder to open the doors of opportunity for our friends in the minority community. Progress will come to them through education – education dedicated to the goal of improving their competence and responsibility.

 

“I believe my friends in the Nairobi Day School are also saying that their students should strive to be competent and responsible.

 

“I am sure I speak for all of the employers in this area – we couldn’t care less about Swahili or African History – we want people who are competent in English and mathematics and science. People who can do a job well. But if pride in their background or learning Swahili helps them appreciate the importance of competence and responsibility, then it’s all to the good.”

 

“We are here tonight to honor and to help the Herbert Hoover Memorial Boys’ Club. It is involved in the future of young people from the black community.

 

“Get these people into club

n  education

n  jobs

n  housing

 

“Don’t blame them for what’s going on – blame yourself – get with it.

 

“The Herbert Hoover Memorial Boys; Club is one of the very important enterprises in our community. It can help bring hope, confidence, competence and responsibility. It can demonstrate that the principles which guided Herbert Hoover’s long and useful life can also serve the young people of today.

 

“We don’t need to discard the things which have made America great. We simply need to get these troubled people on board. This will take understanding by you and me. It will take time and it will take work. There is no greater challenge today. Perhaps this is the most severe challenge we have yet encountered.

 

“It can be done, and one good step is for us all to give our unqualified support to the Herbert Hoover Boys’ Club here in our community.

 

“But don’t stop with your $25 involvement tonight – move into this job as though you really mean it.”

 

 

11/20/68, Copy of the printed program for the Boys’ Club dinner at Rickey’s Hyatt House in Palo Alto.

9/6/68, Letter to Packard from David M Botsford, A Director of the Boys’ Club, saying he had received the “good news” that Packard has agreed to speak at their dinner.

9/11/68, Copy of letter from Packard to David Botsford confirming Packard’s willingness to speak.

11/8/68, Letter to Margaret Paull from Mrs. Crone Kernke sending material written by Herbert Hoover.

11/26/68, Letter to Packard from David Botsford thanking him for his participation at the dinner.

12/4/68, Letter to Margaret Paull thanking her for mailing out invitations to the dinner.

12/13/68, Letter to Packard from Bruce Michael asking for a $5000 donation for the Boys’ Club Drum and Bugle Corps. He says the last minute request is necessitated by the unexpected withdrawal of a pledge from another company.

1217/68, Copy of letter from Packard to Bruce Michael saying he “cannot help further at this time….There are just too many other things that come higher on my list of priorities.”

Several newspaper clippings and other articles providing Packard background reference material.

Box 3, Folder 6 – General Speeches

 

March 31, 1967, Comments on Opportunities Industrialization Center West (OICW),

Palo Alto, CA

 

It is not clear who the audience was to whom Packard was speaking, however HP was a strong supporter of OICW and these remarks, although brief, give an emphatic response to some negative reports that had been made in the community.

 

 

3/31/67, Copy of typewritten text of Packard’s comments

 

“Since it was organized in 1965,” Packard says, “OICW has created and conducted well-managed, effective job training programs geared to the specific needs of Peninsula business and industry. It has received, and continues to merit, the enthusiastic support of all segments of our community.

 

“Through its emphasis on self-help, it has enabled hundreds of unemployed and under-employed people on the Peninsula to obtain worthwhile jobs and to bring hope, confidence and dignity to themselves and to their families.

 

“Our company, as well as many other firms in the area, has hired several OICW graduates, and we intend to hire more. We find these people capable, industrious, and able to make an important contribution to the community’s growth and progress.

 

“It is gratifying to note that throughout local industry there is a growing appreciation and endorsement of OICW. Many firms are pledging increasing financial support to the program, are contributing equipment and teaching skills, and are broadening job opportunities for its graduates.

 

“As with any positive, energetic movement, OICW has gathered a few critics along the way. Several of us in industry have recently investigated and evaluated its criticisms. We find that these are not based on fact but on fancy. They are a product of negativism and questionable motive. It is regrettable that not everyone in our community approaches important social problems in a positive, constructive manner. On the other hand, there is ample evidence that the overwhelming majority of people who are directly exposed to OICW heartily endorse its principles and programs.

 

“The beauty of OICW is that it works. It represents accomplishment, not promise; hope, not despair; affirmation, not protest; action, not apathy. It is a vital, moving force in the betterment of our community and as such, deserves our continuing interest and support.”

 

 

Box 3, Folder 7 – General Speeches

 

October 9, 1967, Dedication of Lou Henry Hoover Building, Hoover Institution, Stanford Alumni and Friends, Hoover Institution

 

10/9/67, Typewritten copy of Packard’s speech,

 

“I am pleased to be able to participate in the dedication of the Lou  Henry Hoover Building. This is an important occasion for the Hoover family, I know, to have their mother – as well as their father – honored here at Stanford and remembered by this beautiful building.

 

“The occasion is also an important and memorable one for many of Herbert and Lou Henry Hoover’s friends and admirers a number of whom have helped to make this building possible. From among these, I would like to say a word about two.

 

“Mr. Jremiah Milbank, because of his close friendship with and great admiration for Mr. And Mrs. Hoover over the past forty years, has been generous to Stanford and the Hoover Institution on many occasions. It is indeed appropriate, and I must add very gratifying personally to me, that the main reading room in the Hoover Tower is being renovated and will be hereafter known as the Jeremiah Milbank Room. Mr. Milbank attended many Advisory Board meetings of the Institution with Mr. Hoover in that room, and I know The Chief would have been very pleased that Jerry Milbank’s name will be permanently inscribed there.

 

“I am sorry to tell you that Mr. Milbank’s health is so uncertain that he cannot be with us today. We are honored, however, by the presence of his son, Jeremiah Milbank, Jr.

 

“About sixty years ago, a penniless and virtually illiterate Serbian youth named Todor P9lich arrived in Los Angeles. He learned English – and through hard work and no small measure of innate ability – he became a successful businessman. His two sons graduated from Stanford, and both played on the football team.

 

“ Mr. Polich came to admire Herbert Hoover and what he stood for and what he believed in, and I, in turn, have been a great admirer of Mr. Polich and of his accomplishments.

 

“Through his generosity, Mr. Todor Polich has helped make the Lou Henry Hoover Building possible, and I am certain that both Mr. And Mrs. Hoover would have been very proud to know that he main seminar room in the Lou Henry Hoover Building will carry his name.

 

“Our dedication today is not only an important event to commemorate the memory of Lou Henry and Herbert Hoover, and to acknowledge those who have given so unselfishly in their tribute to them. The event also has significance in the progress of Stanford University.

 

“The Hoover Institution here on the Stanford campus has become one of the strong and prominent segments of this University. The books, documents, and archives of the Institution constitute a significant proportion of the University’s library collection, and in fact have contributed tremendously to the nation wide prestige of the Stanford Library.

 

“The Institution also has become an important center of scholarly research, study, and publication on subjects which have great significance in these troubled times. Both Mr. and Mrs. Hoover placed great hope that this Institution would serve well in man’s continuing search for a better world. That is also the hope of a great university.

 

“In many ways Lou Henry and Herbert Hoover reflected the tradition of Stanford. They combined a love of scholarship with a dedication of service to their fellowman. I have often marveled at their accomplishment in the translation of Agricola’s De Re Metallica.

 

“Lou Henry Hoover’s involvement in help for young people was extensive throughout her lifetime, and Herbert Hoover set the finest example for young people who would seek to serve their fellowman in a career of public service. In Mr. Hoover’s case, it began with his relief work, continued with numerous assignments under five Presidents, and as president himself.

 

“Nevertheless, he always stoutly maintained that the private sector – the professions and the private business establishment – make the most important contributions to both the social and economic progress of the world.

 

“Every student should read his statements about his profession of engineering.

 

“It is a great profession,” he said, “There is the fascination of watching a figment of the imagination emerge through the aid of science to a plan on paper. Then it moves to realization in stone or metal or energy. Then it brings jobs and homes to men. Then it elevates the standards of living and adds to the comforts of life. That is the engineer’s high privilege.”

 

“If this is not enough to appeal to the socially oriented student of today, Mr. Hoover also pointed out that “from works of engineering, new laws and regulations have to be make and new sorts of wickedness curbed He, the engineer, is also the person who really corrects monopolies and redistributes national wealth.”

 

“Herbert Hoover also had something to say which might help enlighten those students who look with disdain on business as a career. He was a businessman as well as an engineer, and during the last fifty years of his life, which he spent in public service, he had many dealings with the business community. He recognized that the vast majority of businessmen are not motivated by selfish interests. As Food Administrator during World War I he relied largely on voluntary cooperation of the business community in solving the many problems of maintaining an adequate supply and distribution of essential foodstuffs to mount a successful war effort.

 

“In accepting President Wilson’s appointment, he responded by saying, “I hold strongly to the view that while large powers will be necessary for a minority of cases, the vast majority of the producing and distributing elements of the country are only too willing and anxious to serve.”

 

“In his administration of this program, there were great and serious difficulties. Most of these were solv4d, however, because the business community rose above their selfish interests under his leadership.

 

“His leadership toward a higher ethic in business affairs continued as he took charge of the Department of commerce and introduced many programs in which the business community cooperated to better serve the public welfare.

 

“It is an image widespread among students, and professors too, that service to humanity is not a common characteristic in the world of commerce and industry. Such an image was perhaps justified during the early decades of the 20^th Century.

 

“Fortunately, during the last three or four decades, the social attitudes in the world of commerce and industry have undergone a momentus (sic) change for the better. Mr. Hoover’s influence, by way of example and by way of his constructive thought and action throughout his many years of public service, have had no small effect on contributing to this higher ethic in the administration of business and industry.

 

“I am particularly pleased, therefore, that today’s dedication of the Lou Henry Hoover Building recognizes the expanding role of the Hoover Institution in the affairs of this University.

 

“It is my hope that this new building will help the Hoover Institution serve well both faculty and students in their scholarly studies – in their search for new understanding, and new answers, to the perplexing questions of today and tomorrow.

 

“It is my hope also that this new building will serve as a continual reminder – to present and future generations of students and faculty – that Stanford has a great heritage. It is a heritage worthy of preservation, and one reflected in many ways in the lives of Lou Henry and Herbert Hoover.

 

“In particular, this heritage includes a tradition in which the University and its graduates have served their fellowman in the practical as well as the intellectual affairs of the world. It also includes a tradition of strong involvement in – and commitment to – the principles of free and private enterprise as well as public and social service.

 

“I know my hopes in these matters are shared by the vast majority of the Stanford family, as well as those who have made the building possible.

 

“On their behalf it is my privilege and honor to resent the Lou Henry Hoover Building formally to the President and Board of Trustees of Stanford University.”

 

 

10/9/67, Copy of speech handwritten by Packard.

Undated,  Handwritten note from Packard to his secretary Margaret Paull, asking her to arrange to have copies of his speech go out with the Alumni letter.

Copy of the printed invitation to the dedication ceremony.

 

Box 1, Folder 2 – Stanford

 

 January 6, 1957,  Function of the Trustee of the Privately Endowed University, Stanford Business School, Palo Alto

 

1/6/57 Handwritten speech given by Packard at Stanford’s Japanese Seminar.

 

He goes into considerable detail describing how the Board of Trustees operates at Stanford. He describes the history of private universities in the US saying, “Although private individuals started the institutions, in most cases they received support from the local government during the early phases of their history. Soon, however, the administrators, particularly those on the academic side, found it desirable to be entirely free from political influence and so very early divorced themselves from state control. They remain independent and privately administered to a large degree today.”

Speaking of the contribution of private universities to the country Packard says, “Although the public institutions outnumber the private universities and are proportionately much better supported, the private universities exert a tremendous influence in the United States and provide most of the leadership both in the academic and professional areas. for example, in a rating recently made by a large American newspaper, seven out of the top ten universities were privately supported. In the sixty largest business concerns in the United States two-thirds of the officers and directors are graduates of or attended one of these seven leading privately endowed universities. The responsibility of the privately supported university therefore is one of leadership, as even the proponents of publicly supported universities recognize”

Packard describes the organization of the Board of Trustees, its responsibilities as well as limitations placed on it by the founding grant. He covers the work of several committees one of which is the Committee on Investments. “One of the very important responsibilities of the board of trustees is the preservation of the endowment funds that were originally given to the university by the Stanfords and of the funds that have been given subsequently by other donors.”  Packard goes on to list the types of investments held and the percentage each represents of the whole $43 million fund.

Packard says that the Committee on Finance “is responsible for overall financial policy, as well as for day to day financial operation. For example, its most important job is to review the annual budget of the university in order to recommend it to the board of trustees for approval.” The Committee on Buildings and Grounds, Packard says, “assumes responsibility for maintenance of the physical facilities of the university and studies plans for expansion, new buildings,  rehabilitation of older buildings, and all of the things having to do with the physical plant with a view to making specific recommendations to the board of trustees.”

Packard says the board of trustees is less active in the area of academic affairs and that  “The control of academic affairs is centered in the president of the university (as distinct from the president of the board of trustees) and the faculty. In the selection of the president of the university, however, the board of trustees has an important influence on academic affairs because the president, in principle, provides the leadership and, to a large degree, determines the academic caliber of the university.”

Packard gives a detailed description of Stanford’s fiscal budget listing income and expenditures. Endowment income, he says, “is a rather small portion of the total amount of available money. …Generally this money is contracted for the purpose of some specific research in a particular area.

 

2/30/57 Letter from Oswald Nielsen, Professor of Accounting, sending Packard a   typewritten copy of the above speech asking that Packard make any corrections.

1/24/57 Letter from Gail Saxon (Packard’s secretary) sending the draft back to Professor   Nelson with minor changes.

 

Box 1, Folder 28 – HP Management

 

January 11, 1967 – Management Conference, Monterey

 

1/11/67, Typewritten comments prepared by Packard to be given at the conference.

Packard congratulates everyone on the good things done during 1966, but says he wants to talk about areas “where we have done, in my opinion, a disgracefully poor job.”

One example”, he says, “is our management of inventories and accounts receivable.” Dave goes on to say that the problem with receivables started when responsibility was assigned to the sales offices.

 

Dave shows some slides on both inventories and receivables concluding that “this is poor management.” “To put it bluntly – I submit to you that a division manager who is unable to keep his inventories in line better than some of you did in 1966 may be miscast in his job. And, the same applies to an area marketing manager and his receivables. I hope a word to the wise will be sufficient.”

 

“Now all of this has to do with the proper management of our resources – and it goes back to one of our basic objectives – and a very important one – to keep our corporate -wide profits at a rate which will generate resources sufficient for us to finance our growth. It follows logically that we must utilize these resources efficiently. Let’s look at our performance over the last few years in this respect, as shown in Figure 4.” He shows a slide which shows that growth in net worth has not kept up with growth in shipments. He concludes the answer is to increase profits. “It seems to me”, he says, “that any division which is in the ten to twenty million dollar area of sales, should be expected to generate a profit adequate to finance its own growth, and provide a little extra for seed. Here again, I hope a word to the wise is sufficient.”

 

Dave says he has some specific suggestions for consideration:

“First, making a profit adequate to support your own growth is primarily a matter of attitude – you can do it if you decide it is that important – and as far as I am concerned, from here on it is going to be that important.

 

“Second, it is highly dependent on pricing policy. The main opportunity we have to raise our profit performance is to develop new products good enough to justify an adequate profit. They must be priced accordingly, and as I have said before, you have to find new product projects which will generate a substantial volume when proceed to produce an above average profit. If you have development projects which are likely to give you products with large volume and below average profits, you better think about cutting them off – they won’t help you get your performance where it has to be. If you take business on an incremental basis, it had better be a small increment of hour total business, or you are in trouble before you start.

 

“The object of the game is to increase your profits at least as fast, but hopefully faster, than your growth in sales. You are likely to turn in better performance at a higher price level and a lower volume. If your growth in profits is not equal to your growth in volume, an increase in prices will have the effect of bringing them in line. Taking on incremental business will make this relationship move the wrong way.

 

“Third, the problem often starts at the design stage of a new product. If you design an instrument that has more components than its competitive product, or is more difficult to produce, even the most efficient manufacturing effort won’t bail you out.

 

“Fourth, if you don’t take a tough minded attitude about your people and their performance, you are sure to be in trouble. We have emphasized over the years, the importance of being fair to our people, and certainly we must be. But, this does not justify condoning poor performance by anyone in a management position. We cannot build a future for all the people in this company with mediocrity. We must demand excellence.

 

“Fifth, I do not believe we have done a good enough job in our planning. We have not developed an adequate, well considered strategy for what we want to do.

 

…….”The underlying strategy in our new product program must always be to make a contribution – to be ahead of, and better than, our competition.”

“Sixth, we are not yet doing a good job in every division in the transition from development to production. This, again, is as much a failure in planning as in implementation. Last year we had several new products put into production, and on the market, before they were ready to go. This is not good management. This is just floundering around. It wastes resources, as will as effort and every of people.”

 

Packard closes by asking that each division manager submit a written report to him on his strategy and plans for the future in specific detail to improve the performance of his group.

1/12/67, Typewritten pages by Dave Packard . He says that last night we looked at the BIG job we have to do. And now he invites all to take a look at our FIVE YEAR plans. Packard spends some time talking about opportunities in the medical and analytical areas and then moves on to the bigger picture:

 

“In addition to the medical and chemical markets, we  believe there will be a trend toward more automation and data handling in our traditional market. We have been working in systems at Dymec, and we have been developing many instruments which are programmable and produce data in digital form We have looked forward to a growing interest in fully automated instrumentation systems. the introduction of our Computer this year brings us closer to the capability of producing viable, fully automated instrumentation systems. We are not there yet, and I hope we can keep working on the interface problem between instruments produced by different division and with our Computer.

 

“I would summarize the outline of our over-all corporate strategy in regard to our markets and fields of interest as follows:

A. First to strengthen our position in our traditional field of electronic                    instrumentation.

1. Put more emphasis on instruments which make a real                                           contribution in this field.

2. Build a stronger position in automated instrumentation systems.

3. Keep up with latest technology, such as integrated circuits in our                                    new products.

B. Build a viable position in Medical instrumentation.

1. Put more emphasis on instruments which make a real                                           contribution in this field.

2. Build marketing capability to support the program.

 

3. Recognize  that the medical market is fragmented, and                                          concentrate our effort on the portion of this market where we have,                            or can expect to build a viable position.

 

D. Build a position in electronic instrumentation for Analytical Chemistry.

1. Place more emphasis and effort on areas where we can really                               make a contribution.

 

2. Build marketing capability to support program.

 

3. Be sure we keep close coordination and compatibility between                            marketing capability and new product program.

E. Work to bring and concentrate total corporate strength into these four                            field of activity.

 

Development programs, acquisitions, or other endeavors, which are not                  directed into these specific areas should by undertaken only with great                        caution.

 

The balance of the material in this folder is support papers for the conference

 

 

Box 1, Folder 29 – HP Management

 

June 12, 1967, Division Managers Meeting

1/12/67, Folder contains various supporting charts, spreadsheets, for the meeting

 

 

Box 3, Folder 1 – General Speeches

 

March 22, 1966, Remarks to New York Security Analysts, New York City.

And similar comments to Boston Security Analysts on February 9, 1966. Since these are almost identical only the March talk is covered here as Packard’s notes for that are more comprehensive.

 

3/22/66, Packard’s handwritten notes for his talk. Notes are frequently cryptic and/or in brief outline form. The following attempts to quote his notes from beginning to end – no editorial text.

 

“State of Industry

Projections of Electronics Magazine in January.

Total               19,430             +8%

Consumer        3,300               +10%

Color TV      1,400

Industrial         5,837               +16%

Commercial

Federal                        10,200             +6%

 

These figures look conservative now – Viet Nam 10 Billion. Could go to 19 @ 400,000 men.

 

International – Figures not very accurate by comparison. Possibly half of US Market. Has been growing fast. Probably slow down. Trend up but slowing.

 

Industry in tight economic condition.

Material shortages, copper, even aluminum.

 

Components in short supply, production delays, increasing quality problems.

 

Skilled manpower – machinists and technicians.

 

Engineer recruiting, especially at colleges very competitive,

 

Pressure on Costs – probably not severe.

 

At IEEE Show integrated circuits had headlines.

Big applications computers and some military equipment.

 

Impact on instrumentation

HP will have products using IC by end of year.

 

Give Details in Our Area

Test equipment more accurate and sophisticated.

Trend toward automation.

 

HP Operations first quarter

Orders – 51,294,000                +35%

Seasonal Pattern

Shipments – 43,668,000         +30%

33,504,000

Income

8.7%            3,791,000        +48%

7.6%            2,458,000

 

Per Share         31 cents    /      20 cents

12,338,070

12,122,526

International –  $12,081,000   +29%

Research and Development – 10.5% or about 8.5

All divisions performance good.

Microwave and F&T Viet Nam

Of International 1965

2/3 Europe

20% Canada and Western Hemisphere

12% Asia and Africa

 

International Manufacturing

GMBH – +39%

Ltd         +63%

YHP       Problems

 

Balance of payments program will not slow growth. Borrowing in Europe now – may increase, probably at least 10% due to Viet Nam.

 

Some divisions strong from new plant and equipment expenditures. Little Viet Nam influence.

New products continue to be major factor – cover some of these in detail later.

 

Balance Sheet

 

Cash down, retire preferred stock – 8 million.

Plant and equipment – up. Probably spend 20 million this year vs 10

Last.

Accounts payable up – tight money.

Remainder of year push on production.

175,000 sq. ft. Palo Alto

Two buildings in Mt. View

Loveland

Scotland

Material shortages.

Copper, parts, aluminum ingots

Labor – Overtime and push on wages.

Probably maintain profit margins

 

New Products have been life blood of growth.

In 1965 – 16 new products produced 17 million out of 30 million gain. We are showing 60 or so new products at

IRE. Not all important but 15 or 20 should have mature sales level of 1 million annually or more.

 

New Products at IEEE

4260 Universal impedance bridge.

Made in Japan – important to build up sales for other HP products.

 

Two good products from Oscilloscope division.

141A Variable Resistance Scope

155A Programmable Scope

Other good scope products during year.

Dymec

2212A Voltage Frequency  Coverter.

Computer controlled data system.

Quartz thermometer – volume this year.

 

Frequency and Time

5255A 3-12.4 GHz Converter.

5206A Automatic Converter.

Will support 5245L Counter

Reversible Counter

 

Harrison

Several new supplies introduced some designed to work with integrated circuits.

 

HP Associates

Microwave switches

Hot corner diodes

Step recovery

New marketing program

 

Loveland

Sampling voltmeter

New digital voltmeter – improve position

Voltage standards

Auto ranging voltmeter

Inexpensive multi-purpose voltmeter.

 

Microwave

Spectrum Analyzers

Sweep oscillators

Vector Voltmeter – sampling

Phase lock for signal generators.

1.5 MC tape system

 

Sanborn Division

Intensive Care Units

Medical recorders

Data amplifiers

New instruments on deck – from HPL

New marketing organization

South America

We are in medical business to stay – strengthen R&D and whole management team there.

 

Chemical Instruments

 

F&M – Good response

Mechnolab products

Backup programs at HPL

Porter moving East Coast to provide management support for chemical instruments.

 

Management Organization

Strong Manufacturing Divisions

Marketing organization complete.

Order processing

Service centers east and west

Service contracts

Order handling system

In 1956 we did 20 million

We will be pushing 200 million in 1966 – strong hard hitting team in every area.

Continue to make as important contribution in future as we have in the past.

 

3/22/66, Outline of March 22 speech in New York, handwritten by Packard

2/9/66, Outline of comments for February speech in Boston, handwritten by Packard

9/3/65, Copy of letter from Packard to Richard M Hexter concerning scheduling details for speech.

9/8/65, Letter to Packard from Richard M. Hexter saying 3/22/66  date OK.

3/22/66, Newspaper clipping from Palo Alto Times covering Packard’s talk.

3/25/66, Letter to Packard from Richard M Hexter thanking Packard for speech.

5/2/66, Letter to Packard from John G. Lilienthal complimenting him on speech.

1/10/66, Copy of Electronics magazine forecasting fast growth for electronics industry in 1966.

3/66, Copy of HP InterCom magazine covering several new products

Also copies of many letters requesting copies of speech.

 

 

Box 3, Folder 2 – General; Speeches

 

April 6, 1966 , “The Fourth Dimension of Management” Stanford School of Business, Alumni of Paul Holden Management Luncheon, Los Angeles.

 

4/6/66, Typewritten text of speech.

As a preface to his talk Packard explains that he had tried to take a course from Professor Holden at Stanford, “but for some reason I could not get into his course – probably because he thought I wasn’t up to it.” He did succeed in taking evening classes from Holden later on and says that “Although I had only limited exposure to the wisdom of Paul Holden in my education on management, that exposure had no small influence on such success as I have been able to achieve. [As a sidelight, it was Professor Holden who requested that Packard speak to this group of Holden alumni and business people in Southern California.]

Packard says that over the past “twenty-five years there have been some interesting changes taking place in management theory and practice,” and he says would like to discuss some of these today.

 

In the first place Packard says he has seen “a growing recognition of the human side of management.” He recalls a conference on personnel management which he attended in 1946. In answer to a question concerning management’s responsibility beyond trying to make a maximum profit, Packard said he suggested “that perhaps we should provide job security, we should help our people achieve their personal aspirations and those of their families, we should provide the best working conditions possible, because our employees spent half their waking hours with us.” He says he “received little sympathy from the group. Some said, “Yes, to the extent you could prove profits were increased, but not otherwise.”

Today I am sure their answer would be different. Many, if not most, management people would say employee welfare is an objective to be balanced against profits –and other things , too.”

 

Packard says “A second change in management over the last 25 years has been the growing responsibility management people recognize to the community at large. Business people in the competitive free market system traditionally recognized such a responsibility, but felt apparently, this responsibility was discharged by the performance of their business. Free enterprise business has given America the highest standard of living the world has known, …”What more do you expect of us?” the businessman has asked. But it is clear that society does expect more, and this fact is becoming accepted by the management profession. Charitable support of education by business on a non-restricted basis at an increasing level, is one evidence. Participation by management people in such organizations as the Committee for Economic Development, is another.”

 

Packard gives other examples of voluntary participation by management when requested by government. When “the President asked the business community to participate in a voluntary program to help improve this country’s balance of payments problem….The participation was widespread and substantial….There has been voluntary participation for the common good at the expense of the short-term welfare of the specific enterprise before – during wartime, or during an obvious national crisis. Participation on a voluntary basis, in such a problem as the country’s balance of payments, requires both a mature and a sophisticated understanding of a complex problem, and a high commitment to the common good.”

 

Packard gives another recent example where “the President asked the business community to respond, by voluntary action, to help system the increasing inflationary pressures in our economy, by reducing or stretching out new plant and equipment expenditures. I believe the response will be substantial, even though in every case it will require that management people forego something they intended to do for the best interest of their individual enterprises.”

 

Proceeding with a discussion of changes in management attitudes, Packard says that “One of the key ingredients of management is organization – the structure of the assignments of responsibility. Here, it seems to me, there has been a definite trend away from centralization to decentralization, away from the concept of a military type organization of control by command.

 

“This trend has been substantially influenced by human considerations. One concept that has affected organization structure is the concept of management by objective. Following this concept, the organization is structured so every employee has as much freedom as possible in applying his skill, knowledge, and initiative to his job. It preserves as much human dignity as possible for every employee – fortunately, if done well, it also makes for efficient performance of the organization.”

 

Packard describes a concept, used by companies in the past, whereby the Comptroller was expected to control the business, and may have reported directly to the board of directors. Nowadays, however, Packard says “The manager expected to be responsible for his own area of involvement. Accounting and financial control is a tool he is expected to use to do his job better, not as a control to be used to tell him what to do.

 

“Indeed, the further we move toward freedom for the individual manager, the more we find human considerations and non-financial management techniques being used, in addition to financial controls.” Packard warns that “…in many cases over the last few years, where companies moving toward a decentralization structure have put too much emphasis on short-term profits, and have thereby failed to build long term strength into their organization. This weakness in building long-term strength is evidenced by such things as inadequate personnel development within the organization, failure to recognize the importance of research and innovation, and the absence of well developed long range plans which are understood and accepted by the organization.”

 

“No one should propose that we know the ideal organization structure, but I do believe we have made a great deal of progress in the right direction. At least some people have come to recognize that the objective of management is to provide an environment in which every person in the organization can utilize his or here ability most efficiently toward the common goal. The problem is to provide an environment under which this is achieved. It is, in by opinion, not well done by a command performance, not under a financial controller, nor under any rigid control from the top, as was thought a few decades ago.

 

“You may well raise the question about the new scientific methods being proposed for…management….Under this concept, taken to the ultimate, the manager would spend his life sitting before a console – a television type display – which would present facts and figures, charts and graphs, from the corporate computer and its information input system. The manager would push the appropriate button to see his daily or hourly sales, inventory, profit, state of the market, or whatever he thought necessary. It is even conceivable that, having the appropriate model programmed into the computer, the manager could ask the computer to make the optimum decision for the particular circumstances.

 

“When I think of such a management system I am reminded of a comment made by my friend, Professor Condliffe, who held a Chair in Economics at the University of California for many years….Professor Condliffe tells the story about the old librarian who, in handing out his first book on mathematical economics, said to him, “My boy, if you borrow this book you should not just glance through it and bring it back to me. You should read it thoroughly and digest it. But when you have done this, I beg of you to remember that (a + b)²  = a² + 2ab + b² only on one condition – that “a” is not stronger minded than “b”. If he is, the result will be a³ + b.”

 

“I presume the management profession will always have those who are looking for ways to find objective and impersonal answers to the complex problems of human organization. Twenty-five years ago the impersonal accountant, the controller, was one such proposal. Today we have the computer which makes possible a much more sophisticated mathematical approach.

 

“I believe we have made a great deal of progress in understanding the role of the individual in an organization. We have seen the manager’s horizon expanded to better understand the role of the people working in his organization, as well as the relation of his organization to the society in which it exists. For this reason I am greatly troubled by these new trends toward the impersonal approach to management. It is not that I believe mathematics and computers have no place in management. They do. They are important tools. They can collect, refine, and analyze the data necessary to make decisions. In some routine situations they may be able to make the decisions and implement the results. If, however, they are used to manipulate people like cogs in a machine, they will fail in their purpose, and they will be no credit to your profession, not to our society at large.

 

“It is my hope that these trends, which I have been observing over these past 25 years, toward a more human and a more responsible attitude of management, will continue. Management has come recognize its responsibility to employees as human beings – to recognize that their aspirations and their welfare are as important as profit. Management has come to recognize that a business organization is an important part of, integral with, and responsible to, society at large.”

 

“The proper role of business is not just to make a profit, but rather to make a contribution to society in all of its facets. Profit is only the proper measure of that contribution.

 

“This philosophy of management places great demands on the manager. He must be a broad gauged person. He must be knowledgeable in the techniques of management. He must have the vision to see beyond his day-to-day problems, both in time and in distance.

 

“We see in many business organizations broad gauged people, well trained in the techniques of management. We see men with the far-sighted vision of which I speak. We see new mathematical methods of analysis being used, including computers. We have these things in our company. But when I see a department well run, a division well run, or  company well run, I never see it done with good judgment, understanding of human values, mastery of management techniques, or vision alone – there is always a fourth dimension added – it can best be described as the strong minded man. He may even be lacking in some of the other dimensions, but somehow he brings out the best in his people and his organization, and he brings out performance beyond the call of duty. He can do it, whatever his assignment. If he needs financial controls, or mathematical approaches, or computers, he will get them if he can. If he doesn’t have them, he will get the job done anyway.

 

“This, then, is the fourth dimension of management – the personal drive and leadership ability of the manager. It is the difference between the great manager and the mediocre manager. It is the mainspring of management.”

 

“I am concerned that there may be too much emphasis in the selection and training of future managers on the techniques, on the mathematical analysis side, even on the human and visionary side, rather than how to identify and train the potential dynamic leader. There may be too much emphasis on how to do it, rather than being able to do it.

 

“Paul Holden, over his long and distinguished career, has made a great contribution to this fourth dimension of management. He had a great ability to pick students who became doers, and he inspired them in the vision of all of the great challenges of the profession. It is my hope that Stanford, and all the other leading business schools throughout the country, will continue to hold this as their first objective – to build strong in all the dimensions of management – but above all, to select and train the strong minded leader who will make the combination of a plus b squared, become not just a cubed plus b, but a to the fourth power plus b.”

 

2/4/66, Letter to Packard from John L. Wiester, President Stanford Business School Association of Southern California, asking if Packard would be willing to speak to their group at the annual Paul Holden Management luncheon.

2/24/66, Copy of letter from Margaret Paull to Robert J. Evers sending biography and photo of Packard.

3/1/66, Letter to Packard from John L. Wiester talking about travel arrangements.

3/2/66, Memo from Dave Kirby to Margaret Paull that the Stanford people would like to know a title of Packard’s speech as soon as possible.

4/6/66, Newspaper clipping from Palo Alto Times covering Packard’s speech.

4/7/66, Newspaper clipping from the Los Angeles Times covering Packard’s speech.

4/8/66, Letter to Packard from John L. Wiester thanking him for participating in the luncheon.

4/12/66, Letter to Packard from E. G. Nichols of Weston Instruments, Inc. agreeing with Packard’s comments on computers.

4/15/66, Letter to Packard from Melvyn S. Glass in Los Altos commenting on SP’s speech and enclosing an article by a Louis Kelso which he recommends.

5/2/66, Copy of a letter from Packard to Melvyn Glass saying Kelso’s article “is about as socialistic as I have seen, and would have all the disadvantages of such a system.”

4/15/66, Handwritten, two page letter to Packard from John Troxell, Stanford University Division of Industrial Relations, commenting favorably on Packard’s speech.

Summer 1966, Stanford Graduate School of Business Bulletin containing a summary of Packard’s speech along with photo of he along with Paul Holden and John L. Wiester. Packard is shown receiving the Paul E. Holden Lecture Award.

Several letters requesting copies of Packard’s speech.

 

 

 

Box 3, Folder 3 – General Speeches

 

May 6, 1966, “Business as a Social Institution” American Heritage Lecture, University of Colorado, Boulder , Colorado

 

5/6/66, Copy of typewritten speech

 

Packard says “We are continuing to experience the most impressive period of economic prosperity and growth in the history of America.” He gives some statistics to highlight this: Gross National Product up to 725 billion from 504 in 1960 – an increase of 40%. “To put these figures in perspective, in a mere five years we have increased our output of goods and services by an amount nearly equal to the total goods and services available to the people in France and Germany combined.,.”

 

Although the future looks bright, Packard sees “a strong current of restlessness, a growing concern among the American people about their society. It is a concern among groups of people who feel they have not received their fair share of the increasing prosperity. But, it is also the concern of people who believe that a society should provide more than material benefits for its people. It is expressed by students …by men and women in government, in professional life, in the arts, and in business and industry. It is a basic questioning of our goals and values – and it is expressed by many thinking Americans.”

 

Packard acknowledges that with all the unrest going on “…it is difficult to keep the current upsurge of social unrest in perspective. The age-old American Dream of social equality, and a good life for every American, has generated a turmoil which has been recorded, in varying degrees of intensity, in every period of our history. If the turmoil seems greater today it may be because communication between people is more efficient than ever before, with radio, television, easy and rapid travel across the country, in addition to the written word in newspapers, periodicals and books.”

 

“Even though the present social unrest is expressed in the main by minorities, and its  manifestations are magnified by our vast and efficient communication facilities, it seems nevertheless a very real and genuine Phenomena. Behind it lies the immensely important fact that the great economic progress of the Western World has brought legitimate social goals within reach of all. Under these circumstances it seems to me that impatience with progress – rather, the lack of progress – is bound to increase.”

 

Packard recalls that “Social equality was, after all, one of the founding concepts of America, It represented the opportunity to improve one’s position, to provide a better life for one’s children…. The American Dream was developed in an environment which rewarded hard work and ability, rather than social background. The proper rewards were a better job, a better home, a better economic position, when the majority were living at the edge of poverty. But it is taking a short-sighted view of human nature, indeed, to assume that aspiration are, or should be, limited to the benefits of affluence. An improved economic status is a reasonable first objective in human progress, but it should by no means be considered the only, or the final, objective.”

 

Packard says that “It seems to me, then, quite reasonable to assume that as satisfactory levels, of material well-being are achieved, other goals and aspirations of people will become more important….Furthermore, as a large majority of our people achieve a satisfactory economic position, those who fail to do so are properly more concerned as to why they are left behind.”

 

Packard says he does not always agree with the methods employed in some areas of social unrest, not with some of the disruptive forces behind them, “I must conclude that the developments are logical and healthy for the future of America.

 

“This concern about America and its future is apparent in every facet of our society. It is being expressed in the government by a myriad of new laws and administrative action directed toward social welfare. It is being expressed by the churches, no longer content with the role of leading the way to a better life in the hereafter. They are increasingly becoming involved in trying to make a better life here, now. New organizations to attack social problems are springing up on every side. The institution of business is not exempt from these influences – in fact, the business community is very much at the forefront of the modern social revolution. Today I want to explore with you some of the developments which have been changing the business enterprise from a strictly economic activity to an activity which has a strong social basis, and one which is having, and will continue to have, profound effect on the progress of our society in other than material ways.

 

“The business community has, almost throughout history, been accused of crass materialistic, selfish motives.”

 

“In more modern times it has been widely accepted that the business of business is business – and nothing else. The capitalistic, free enterprise, business community of America has traditionally defended itself in this position – by claiming, and with ample justification, that its methods have produced for the American Society the highest standard of living the world has ever known.

 

“Before the turn of the century the profit motive and free enterprise were sometimes defended on the theory of selective and self-improving evolution – the survival of the fittest.”

 

“Throughout the early decades of the twentieth century, the profit motive and a laissez faire economic environment were the ingredients which continued to build strength into the American economy, and an improved standard of loving for its people. Business leaders could point with justifiable pride to their accomplishments. The average standard of living in America advanced at an impressive rate. The door was always open for a person with ambition, ability, and a little luck, to move up the ladder – often two rungs at a time. The Horatio Alger story was repeated frequently enough to make it a credible goal for any young man or young woman. And it remains so today.”

 

But even with all this “impressive economic progress…there has been a growing, disquieting concern that this was not enough. Even before the turn of the century it was clear that the American society expected a broader responsibility from its business community. The government expressed its expectations with laws to control trusts, to protect consumers and employees. Labor unions expanded, often led by men who felt they had been denied opportunities in industry. In time they became a formidable counter-force to the power of business.”

 

Packard says that depressions would tend to intensify the country’s concern about business practices, “and the great depression of the 1930’s was no exception. When the economy was strong, it seemed reasonable to argue that the harsh practices, which resulted from uncontrolled free enterprise and the profit motive, were a small price to pay for the great economic progress produced. When the economy collapsed, the argument collapsed, and the critical attention of public opinion came to action. This the New Deal added new constraints to business, and the power of labor expanded throughout the thirties.

 

“The growth of business regulation by law, and the growth of union power, were not without their effect on the attitude of business leaders. Throughout the first part of the century there was a growing awareness that business managers did, in fact, have a responsibility beyond making a profit for their investors. They became more aware that their responsibility to their customers was not limited to the doctrine of caveat emptor. They began to realize that labor was not a commodity to be bought and sold on the open market, but was composed of men and women with human aspirations, and should be treated accordingly.

 

“This trend toward a greater social awareness on the part of business was encouraged by the development of Scientific Management.” And Packard traces the roots of Scientific Management in American history: Eli Whitney’s introduction of interchangeable parts in 1800, making mass production possible, attention to plant layout and material handling. F. W. Taylor’s techniques, which began with time and motion studies, were directed at improving production efficiency, and provided the basis for a management profession. This new profession was limited to specialists in its early years. Out of this beginning has grown a group of people well trained in the expertise of management, who have largely replaced the entrepreneur as the business leader.”

 

Continuing his description of the evolution of Scientific Management Packard cites a study by Elton Mayo of Harvard which “brought into focus the “human relations” in management. In a famous experiment at the Western Electric Company, he found that people responded to an improved environment with improved productivity. More important, his experiment seemed to demonstrate that people performed better if someone is simply interested in their welfare. This was a revolutionary idea in the 1920’s, but we see it work every day in our factories throughout the country in 1966.

 

“Market research brought the needs and desires of the customer into focus. The case of the Model T Ford clearly demonstrated that the business manager who thought he alone should decide what the customer should have would be left behind….No business can survive for long unless it serves its customers well.

 

“And throughout the past few decades business people have taken an increasing interest in the community around them. This was first expressed by the private philanthropy of men who had achieved wealth through their business careers. They built libraries and schools, and contributed in other ways to the public benefit. Then business organizations began to provide support for the social and cultural activities in the communities where they were located. This trend was greatly accelerated by the New Jersey court decision in A. P. Smith Mfg. Vs. Barlow case in 1953, which established that it was a proper function for a corporation to contribute to the support of education and other social endeavors. In recent years business support of America’s schools, colleges and universities has grown at a rapid rate, reaching a level of some $300,000,000 in 1965.”

 

Packard quotes William Henry Vanderbilt who, in 1880, said “The public be damned.” And Packard adds the observation that “Were Vanderbilt around today he would discover, perhaps to his dismay, that business has become an important social institution.”

 

Perhaps “a constructive social institution,” he adds. “Ever since the evolution of the industrial economy, business has had an important influence, in one way or another, on the personal lives of many people.

 

“The jobs which are provided by the business community supply the sole source of income for a majority of all families. One might conclude, if this income is adequate for a reasonable standard of living, the responsibility of business is satisfied. This, however, overlooks the fact that most people spend a large portion of their waking hours at their job. For this reason it has always seemed to me that the working environment, the satisfaction – the enjoyment, if you will – a person receives from the work he does, is important. And I think most business managers, the people who determine such things, have come to agree.”

 

Packard talks about the new, attractive industrial parks one sees around the country. And he compares these to “the dirty, unattractive industrial sections I used to ride through on the train going into Chicago twenty years ago.

 

“When one sees the inside of these new, modern factories, the comparison with factories built a few decades ago is even more impressive. In our company we have gone to great lengths to make our plants as attractive as possible for our people, with good lighting, attractive colors, air conditioning, and recreation areas for use in the noon hour.”

 

“But it is not just the physical environment which makes a job something more than a way to earn a wage. It is also the attitude and relationship among people in the plant. Supervisors are trained in human relations, and many other things are done to treat employees as people, rather than as numbers on a time clock. There are company activities, clubs of numerous kinds for employees, and in every sense a job has become a part of a person’s social life, as well as his economic life. I am convinced the trends toward this end will expand. “

 

Packard says “There are many other manifestations of this growing social conscience in the business community. Some are seen in the inner workings of the enterprise, others in relations with the outside world.

 

“There has been a great deal more attention to the customer, in quality of product, in recent years.”

 

“I do not propose to say that the business community has developed a social conscience toward the customer without some prodding by government regulations, and without the discipline of a free market. Without a doubt, the free market has been the strongest factor in encouraging a sense of business responsibility to the customer. In any case, if one thinks the customer can be protected by the government alone, I suggest he pay a short visit to Russia, where the government has been in complete control of the production of consumer products. There the public could hardly fare worse in getting what it wants and needs, either in quantity or quality.

 

“ It is in its relationship with the public-at-large that the development of a social conscience in business is most clearly seen. In this area things are happening which do not have a clearly definable business purpose. In some instances they seem even adverse in some degree to the short-term interest of the business enterprise.”

 

As examples of this Packard tells of two occasions in the past two years where “the President has called on the business community to undertake voluntary action to help solve a problem of national interest. In one case he asked business to limit expenditures and investments overseas to help the country’s balance of payment problem. The problem was caused primarily by government foreign aid and defense expenditures which generated an outflow of dollars.” In another example “the President asked again for the business community to take voluntary action to help stem the threat of inflation which has been developing in our economy over the past few months….voluntary action has been undertaken, again at the expense of legitimate business plans and programs.

 

“One of the most difficult problems is that of Civil Rights. There are groups which make the headlines. There has been considerable legislation. Behind this is a great deal of constructive effort by the business community. We are working to make available more jobs for minority groups. Many of the people in the minority groups have inadequate education and training for the jobs which are available. To help in this matter most business organizations have expanded their company training programs to help people improve their abilities and to move ahead. Great emphasis is being placed on the job of improving attitudes for better acceptance of these people in their jobs….What I see going on in the business community is more impressive, and I believe producing more progress, than all of the activities which are reported in the headlines – the governmental activities not excepted.

 

”Another area, broader in scope, in which the business community is making a significant contribution is that of public affairs. This covers a wide range of community, civic and political activities. Not too many years ago, most businessmen took the attitude that “politics is none of my business – nor the business of my employees.”

 

“Today, however, we find many companies who are devoting considerable time, money and effort to encouraging their employees to take a more active, personal interest in political and other civic affairs….Business is no longer content to “let George do it”; it has come to the realization that politics is not the politicians’ business – it is everybody’s business.

 

“Week in and week out I see business people concerned with other national problems. I see them providing advice and counsel to various governmental agencies, serving on committees, doing a number of public-spirited jobs – often at a sacrifice of time and energy which could be well spent in managing their own enterprises.”

 

Packard cautions that “…while I have pointed out that business has come a long way in developing a social conscience, let me assure you that it still has a long way to go. There are still within our ranks practitioners of chicanery, double-talk, fact-dodging, half-truths. There are those who are so enamoured with short-term profits that they overlook the importance of building long-term strength and vitality into their organizations.

 

“And even among those who have shown a flicker of public spirit, of responsible citizenship, there are still some who are unwilling to tackle the really big problems of the day – civil rights, mass transportation, water pollution, poverty, urban renewal. These are problems that cannot be solved by any single group of our society, but by the cooperative effort of many dedicated groups.

 

“As an example of an area where much remains to be done, let’s look at education. I mentioned that business support of education now amounts to nearly $1,000,000 per day. This is an enormous outlay, and one of which the business community is justifiable proud. But simply turning over a check to his favorite school or college does not end the businessman’s responsibility to education. He needs to take an interest in how the money is spent. He often does serve on governing boards to help the educational institution utilize its resources effectively. But the businessman can and should participate in many other ways to help our schools and colleges do a better job of educating America’s most important resource – our many millions of younger people.

 

“I realize there are some in the academic profession who believe that education is the proper concern of the faculty alone – that outsiders of any kind, including businessmen, should not attempt to influence the educational process. There is a great deal of tradition begin this view and in the main it has some merit. Nevertheless, I firmly believe there are many areas in which business people can properly and effectively make constructive contributions to the educational process. They can serve as lecturers in fields of their competence. They can provide consulting opportunities and temporary jobs for professors which reflect back in the professor’s classroom to the benefit of the student…I see nothing wrong – in fact, I see much benefit – when businessmen as well as other citizens take a constructive interest in the educational process at all levels.”

 

Packard acknowledges that business firms have focused a great deal of time and money on colleges and universities, and he asks the question “But what of the fifty percent of our younger people who will never get to college? These people, many of whom are employable and certainly trainable, are in many cases being shunted off into the wings. As Peter Drucker, the noted business writer and lecturer, has pointed out, there is a real danger that our country will be divided by the “paper curtain” of the college diploma. This is a political and social danger – and I think an economic danger. It certainly is, or should be, the concern of every business leader to create opportunities for the non-college graduate and to see that he is not considered an object of charity. It seems, then, that it should be a concern of businessmen to work with educators at all levels of our school system – from the first grade on up – to see that we are getting the most for our educational dollar and to help teachers and administrators with the enormous job which rests on their shoulders.

 

“It has been pointed out that the business leader, in attempting to improve the quality of our society, is sometimes confronted with conflicting pressures. On one hand is the responsibility to his stockholders and employees to optimize profits. On the other hand, his efforts to upgrade the social environment may, in fact, penalize profits.

 

“Actually, in my judgment there is little conflict between a corporation’s social responsibility and its economic responsibility to is stockholders. And what little conflict exists is focused on the short term, rather than the longer, broader gauged view of return-on-investment.

 

“While stockholders expect the corporation to earn a profit today, they also should expect it to create and enhance an environment in which it can continue to earn a profit tomorrow.

 

“In the course of these remarks I have emphasized that business has come a long way from the laissez faire, profit-motivated attitude which prevailed at the turn of the century. But I don’t wish to imply that freedom of business decision and profit making are no longer important. These, in fact, remain the mainspring of our entire economic system. The myriad decisions necessary for a vigorous, growing economy cannot be effectively made from a central authority. Rather they must be formulated within the business community itself, operating in the framework of a free and competitive market.

 

“It is my firm conviction that this same freedom of decision by business management is a powerful force in overcoming the great social problems confronting America. Legislation can provide a guide to social betterment, and action groups may add to the incentive, but the real progress comes from the day-to-day decisions of those people directly involved. To a very large extent these are the thousands of business leaders throughout the country.

 

“But social progress is impossible without economic progress; therefore social progress will be made only if we continue to have a healthy, growing economy. In our free enterprise system, economic health and vitality are, in the final analysis, determined and measured by profit. Today we consider profit not just as a return on the investment made in a business, but as the best single measure of the contribution a business makes to the society in which it exists. And the profit a business makes is, in the final analysis, the sole source of its strength to grow, to provide more and better jobs, to do its share in helping to create a better life for its employees, for its customers, and for the public-at-large, as well as for those people who invest and risk their money in the business.

 

“Business has come a long way in evolving from a strictly economic institution into a powerful, constructive institution working for the cause of social betterment. This evolution has been encouraged by Government action. It has been advanced by the pressures of unions and public opinion. It has been implemented by the development of asocial conscience among business leaders. Perhaps you would prefer to describe it simply as the development of an enlightened self-interest in the business community However you may wish to describe it, whatever the motivating forces behind it, I am convinced that it is one of the most important pillars of the social progress which we all hope to achieve as we more on into the future.”

 

10/25/65, Letter to Packard from J. R. Smiley, President, University of Colorado, inviting him to be their1966 American Heritage Lecturer.

10/27/65, Letter to Packard from William H. Baughn, Dean, School of Business,  expressing the hope that Packard will be able to participate in the American Heritage Lecture Series.

10/29/65, Copy of a letter from Packard to J. R. Smiley wherein Packard says he is leaving on a trip and will let them know if he can participate in two weeks.

11/16/65, Copy of a letter from Packard to J. R. Smiley saying he has decided he can

participate in the Lecture Series.

11/23/65, Letter to Packard from J. R. Smiley expressing appreciation on hearing Packard will be able to speak, and suggesting dates.

1/12/66, Letter to Packard from William H. Baughn discussing possible dates.

1/17/66, Copy of letter from Packard to William H. Baughn agreeing on date of May 6 and saying he will discuss business management.

1/26/66, Letter to Packard from William H. Baughn requesting the title of Packard’s talk when convenient.

2/25/66, Copy of letter from Margaret Paull to William H. Baughn enclosing photo, biography, and giving title of Packard’s speech as “Business as a Social Institution.:

3/1/66, Letter to Margaret Paull from William H. Baughn thanking her for the above information.

4/11/66, Letter to Packard from Maurice, Label, enclosing the program for the May 6 American Heritage Lecture. The program is included.

4/15/66, Letter to Packard from William H. Baughn discussing travel arrangements.

4/18/66, Copy of letter from Packard to William H. Baughn discussing travel arrangements.

4/20/66, Letter to Packard from William H. Baughn discussing dinner arrangements.

4/25/66, Letter to Packard enclosing a copy of an article to be printed in Newsweek Magazine titled “What Americans Really Think of Business.

5/11/66, Copy of letter to David Kirby of HP from Robert S, Dunham, Editor University News Service, discussing printing of Packard’s speech in the Colorado Quarterly.

3/24/66, Printed pamphlet containing a speech by George Champion, Chairman of the Board, Chase National Bank, titled “private Enterprise and Public Responsibility in a Free Economy.

5/6/66, Printed program of the School of Business Business-Alumni Conference to be held on May 6 and 7.

 

 

Box  3, Folder 4 – General Speeches

 

June 2, 1966. Acceptance, Hoover Medal, Stanford Alumni Associates, New York City

 

6/2/66, Typewritten text of Packard’s comments on receiving this award, with some handwritten notations by Packard.

 

Packard speaks primarily of Herbert Hoover, saying that “This medal has special significance for me because I had the great fortune to become well acquainted with Herbert Hoover during the last few years of his song and fruitful life.

 

“He was devoted to Stanford, to education and to scholarship in the highest sense of the word. He was a Stanford trustee for 50 years. He founded the Stanford Business School and made many important contributions to Stanford during his long term of service as a trustee. On several occasions he told me that he considered the establishment of the Hoover Institution on the Stanford campus as the most important work of his lifetime.

“Most people, particularly in this country, thought of Herbert Hoover as a dedicated conservative and a staunch supporter of free enterprise and what he referred to as rugged individualism. These things he believed in and stood for. But he was first and above all a practical idealist and a humanitarian.

 

“He saw so much human suffering he desperately wanted the future to be better than the past. It was for this reason he placed great hope in this institution he founded at Stanford. He hoped that scholars, by studying the lessons of his contemporary times contained in the vast collection of documents he assembled in his institution, would be able to point the way to a better future for the world. Many of us are working to expand the role of the Hoover Institution at Stanford because we share his aims and hopes.”

 

“When speaking of his profession – engineering – he emphasized its social benefits. He spoke of the “unending stream of goodness from engineering – jobs and homes for men.” He said, “engineering elevates the standard of living and adds to the comports of life.”

 

“ Mr. Hoover’s to devotion to the welfare of mankind stemmed, no doubt, from his Quaker upbringing and it encouraged him to spend the last 50 years of his life in public service. Time and again his high motives called similar response from those who knew and worked with him As Food Administrator in World War I, he relied largely on voluntary cooperation from the business community…. In accepting President Wilson’s appointment Mr. Hoover responded saying, “I hold strong to the view that while large powers will be necessary in a minority of cases, the vast majority of the producing and distributing elements in the country are only too willing and anxious to serve.”

 

Packard describes Hoover as “…a warm, philosophical man with a good sense of humor. He loved to sit around after dinner and tell stories….Often these stories would get around to fishing which was his great hobby.”

 

“The importance of this event today is not that I am the recipient of this medal – rather it is that the Herbert Hoover Medal established by the Stanford Alumni Association will serve year after year, to recall for the benefit of new generations, the wisdom and teachings of one of the great men of the twentieth century. With the increasing trend in America toward socialism, toward a welfare sate – with the growth of the new radical left infesting our universities – and other forces striking at the traditional pillars of the American society, we need to preserve as a stabilizing element Herbert Hoover’s kind of practical idealism, his respect for the individual and the contributions an individual can make in an environment of freedom, his kind of devotion to human welfare. If the tradition of the Herbert Hoover Medal contributes to this end, it will serve a worthy purpose regardless of such honor as may be bestowed on the recipients.”

 

6/2/66, Text of speech handwritten by Packard.6/2/66,

6/2/66,  Newspaper clipping covering speech.

6/2/66, Stanford University News Service release on speech.

6/66, Clipping from Stanford Observer covering speech.

1/11/66, Letter to Packard from Lewis L. Fenton, Stanford Alumni Association following up on a previous conversation about Packard having been selected to receive the fourth Herbert Hoover Medal, and discussing possible dates.2/3/66, Copy of letter from Packard to Lewis Fenton discussing dates.

2/11/66, Letter to Packard from Robert Pierce with further discussion of dates.

3/24/66, Letter to Packard from Lyle M. Nelson enclosing a copy of speeches made at the Herbert Hoover Medal award ceremony in 1965.

5/2/66, Copy of letter to Bill Hewlett from Roger Lewis of the Alumni Association inviting him to the award ceremony.

5/10/66, Letter to Packard from H. H. Buttner [HP Director], congratulating  Packard on the award and telling him he will be at the luncheon.

6/2/66, Lists of invitees and acceptances.

6/9/66, Copy of letter from Packard to Roger Lewis thanking him for serving as host at the Hoover luncheon.

6/3/66, Handwritten letter from Thomas Martzloff to Packard asking for the name of a book Packard had referred to previously.

6/9/66, Copy of letter from Packard to Richard C. McCurdy thanking him for serving as host at the Hoover luncheon.6/9/66, Copy of letter from Packard to Tom Martzloff  sending him a copy of a publication called Western Politica, published by a group of students at Stanford. Packard also mentions the Port Huron Statement, describing it as “a manifesto of the Students for a Democratic Society.”

6/6/66, Letter to Packard from James C. Haugh congratulating him on the award.

6/9/66, Copy of letter from Packard to James Haugh expressing his appreciation for Mr. Haugh’s support on behalf of Stanford.

6/22/66, Letter to Packard from John L. J. Hart sending an enclosure which is not named.

6/23/66, Copy of letter from Packard to John L. J. Hart thanking him for the clipping and saying he looks forward to seeing him at the “Grove”.

7/6/66, Copy of letter from Packard to the Stanford Alumni Association c/o Lewis Fenton expressing his appreciation for the award. Packard says “This recognition will give me great encouragement to continue to help our University toward the standards of excellence which will make all alumni proud of their Alma Mater.”

7/21/66, Letter to Packard from Robert M. Golden, President Stanford Alumni Association, extending an invitation to Packard to participate in any Alumni Association activities, and in particular mentioning the new camp on Fallen Leaf Lake.

Many letters of regret that they could not make the award luncheon, or of congratulation`.

 

 

Box 3, Folder 5 – General Speeches

 

September 17, 1966, Industrial Development of Colorado: Opportunities and Problems. Loveland Chamber of Commerce Industrial Days Banquet.

 

9/17/66, Typewritten text of speech with handwritten notations by Packard.

Saying that HP first opened a plant in Colorado seven years ago, Packard tells his audience that the coming to Colorado “has been a very good decision for our company. I hope you also feel it was a good decision for Colorado – and for Loveland and Colorado Springs, where our plants are located.

 

“Both of our divisions in Colorado have prospered, and we believe they will continue to do so. They have done well because we were fortunate to have, from the very beginning, a competent group of people to establish and manage these divisions.

 

“These divisions have done well because Colorado provides an excellent environment for a technologically-oriented industry like ours.”

 

Packard also refers to the “splendid help and cooperation we have received from so many people throughout the state.”

 

Saying that “Colorado has been eminently successful in attracting new industry over the past few years”, Packard says he “would like to pass along a few thoughts about the problems and opportunities of industrial development here in your state.”

 

Packard’s first point is that “the underlying purpose of industrial development for a state or a region is not just to improve and strengthen the economy, but also to contribute to – and improve if possible – the social environment of the area.

 

The main objective of industrial development is to make a region a better place for all of its citizens. Now, this is a difficult problem in practice because it involves the interests and aspirations of many people, and these often come into conflict. But it is important that these diverse interests and aspirations be recognized and dealt with by everyone involved.”

 

Packard acknowledges that many changes have come to Loveland following the arrival of Hewlett-Packard. :”There is more traffic,. There are new pressures on schools. Many new houses have been built. Business activity, particularly service type business, has expanded.

 

“We hope the changes that can be attributed to our being in the area have been, in balance, good for the community. I am certain there are some who would prefer to have Loveland the way it was before -–or at least those who look upon some aspects of this rather substantial growth as not all for the better.” Packard quotes John Gardner, the U.S. Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, as saying in reference to a changing world that “It’s perfectly safe to be nostalgic about the world we left behind us. It’s gone forever. We have no choice but to try to make the world of the future the kind of world we want, the kind of world we think is worth living in.”

 

“Industrial development affects not just the economy of an area, but the social environment as well. It provides strong motivation for change – for many kinds of change.

 

“This makes a strong case for the importance of long range planning by any community seeking to expand its economic base by attracting business and industry. Long range planning of the entire community or area in all its aspects is an absolute necessity to guide growth accelerated by new industries attracted to the area. Even with good planning, implementation is difficult and things don’t always turn out the way we hope. Planning and its implementation in the right direction is difficult because there are many interests involved and they are often in conflict to some degree, at least.”

 

Saying that “Good planning requires imagination…and leadership.” Packard points out some of the many questions that must be given consideration: “Careful thought has to be given to what the community should be like ten or twenty years ahead. The plan should be based on a thorough understanding of what the community hopes it will be when and if the industrial development program is completed. The existing pattern of the community is bound to be affected. What will the new pattern be? Is the industrial complex to be integrated from residential sections?  What are the ultimate traffic patterns? How are the schools, shopping areas, recreational facilities related to industrial areas?”

 

The uncertainties of business make it difficult for companies to predict the future and this “demands that community-industry planning be flexible, cooperative, and continuous. We encourage our divisions to cooperate closely with the people in their communities with the hope that their help will be constructive in encouraging sound long-range planning for the benefit of the entire community and in carrying out those plans on a year-to-year basis. We want to make a meaningful contribution in this direction here in Colorado. If you feel there is more we can do in any area, I hope you will tell us so.

 

“I say this not in a sense of high-minded idealism – I say it from a hard-nosed business viewpoint. Our company will be more successful in Colorado of Colorado is a better place to live, to raise families, to provide a proper environment for people to achieve their personal aspirations. Today, more than ever before, the success of a company is determined by its people. If they are capable, enthusiastic about their work, enthusiastic about where they live, their success working together in a business enterprise is most likely to be assured. This has become more apparent to the business community in recent years as an important ingredient in a successful enterprise.”

 

In the past, Packard says, “prime attraction for industry to Colorado has been natural resources. The economy of your state has been built on mining, agriculture, limbering, smelting and refining, and of course, tourism. All of these are almost entirely dependent on Colorado’s great natural resources….There has been no large pool of skilled labor, no mass market, nor low-cost transportation to mass markets.

 

“However, in recent years the door has been opened to a new and great opportunity for Colorado. This opportunity stems from the development of what are often called knowledge-based industries. This type of industry has changed the traditional ground rules for plant locations. Because it is less dependent on raw materials and energy sources, it can be more flexible in choosing a location. It measures site selection by other criteria, and it is this that provides the opportunity for industrial expansion in Colorado.”

 

Following this thought, Packard suggests that “It might be interesting to review what we in Hewlett-Packard consider to be the primary considerations for the selection of a new plant location for our company. Other companies might have different areas of emphasis, but I believe they would generally have the same criteria on their lists.

 

“The first of these is that of living conditions. That is, a desirable community and region in which people can live…Colorado is a good place to live. It has an excellent climate, many attractive residential communities, good government, and a good public school system. These assets are attractive to people, They should be nurtured and improved. Unfortunately they can be deteriorated or destroyed by unplanned, too-rapid growth. I would thus again emphasize the importance of  sound planning directed toward keeping an attractive residential character in your cities and towns. This is not inconsistent with industrial development, but complementary to it.

 

“The development of large urban centers with industry concentrated in unattractive surroundings, people driving on crowded highways to go to work every day, should, in by view, be discouraged whenever possible.”

 

Packard tells of a recent article in the U.S. News & World Report magazine which included information gained in Loveland. “…The article posed some of the issues we are talking about here tonight – that is, the almost overwhelming problems of the megalopolis., including population, traffic, pollution, crime, and costs. It then presented the views of a number of industry representatives supporting the position that industry can find a home, indeed a very pleasant home, in many smaller communities through the country.

 

“Our feelings on this subject were reported in some detail, and certainly reflect our satisfaction with living and working in Loveland and Colorado Springs.”

 

“I would hope – with Colorado in its early stages of potential growth – that those of you who are undertaking to guide the future of the sate will place great emphasis on this concept. Colorado has the opportunity to become the model of industry-community development of the future. By careful planning you can avoid the disaster of over-concentration of people, air and water pollution, frustrating traffic, and other difficulties which have befallen many communities throughout the country.”

 

“A good establishment in higher education is a very important attraction to new industry, and has high priority on our list of criteria. You in Colorado have an excellent state university system, and a number of good private colleges and universities as well. This was an important consideration which attracted my company to Colorado. One out of every eight people Hewlett-Packard employs is a college graduate. They are scientists, engineers, management people living in a fast changing world. They must be dedicated to continuing education to keep abreast of their professions. They seek and need continuing formal education, and they thrive and produce best in an intellectual environment.”

 

“Good air transportation is essential for any industry operating on a national or international basis, and therefore another important consideration. Fortunately, you have in Denver one of the country’s major air terminals. This, too, was a decisive factor in Hewlett-Packard’s selection of Colorado. I hope you will remember that this is an important asset for the state’s industrial development program.”

 

“A fourth criteria, which is also of extreme importance to us, is the availability of the kind of people we need. In our line of work, we have an almost continuing need for highly trained and motivated engineering and scientific personnel. Ours is an industry of innovation. New and worthwhile electronic, chemical, and medical instrumentation is our life-blood.”

 

“We, along with many other companies of our type, also have need for a pool of skilled and unskilled labor. As our company grows, we have ever-expanding requirements for electronic technicians, machinists, secretaries, and others with similar special training.”

 

“It is also desirable to  locate in communities which have a high percentage of high school graduates. There are many activities in our manufacturing processes that can be undertaken by these people, following a short in-plant training period.”

 

“And finally, site selection is heavily influenced by the posture of local, regional, and state governments. We seek communities that have progressive, efficient local governmental organizations that encourage sound industrial development; organizations that can meet the challenges of community planning in the face of a changing environment. Se seek out those states that have demonstrated a sincere interest in business and industry. We are not seeking favors, only favorable attitudes.

 

“Once established, we expect to be a community neighbor for a long time. We would hope, therefore, that immediate favorable attitudes demonstrated by the region and the state would be extended for many years into the future. Needless to say, this relationship is a two-way street, and we would expect to conduct our business in a manner consistent with the policy of being a good neighbor.

 

“Let me say again, we are very pleased that our company came to Colorado. Let me also say that I believe all of you deserve a great deal of credit for the industrial development which has taken place over the last few years in Colorado. I suspect many who are working to encourage more industry to come here are disappointed that the progress is sometimes slower than you hope for. It seems to me progress may sometimes be slower that desired – especially if you are careful and selective in what you do.

 

“On this point I would suggest much caution against haste. It has been proposed, for example, that communities should issue tax free bonds to offer special inducements for an industry to come to the community. This, in by view, is a very hazardous procedure. Some communities in the south have done this to build plants for an industry, only to find that after a few years the business fails, or for some reason has to move elsewhere. The community is then left to pay off the bonds with no industry to help.

 

“I hope you will not adopt this procedure here in Colorado. If the attraction you have is not sufficient to encourage the industry to come under normal business procedures, you are probably better off without it. Artificial inducements encourage poor decisions for both the industry and the community and should be avoided in most cases.

 

“”I am very pleased to have had this opportunity to be here with you tonight. I have enjoyed seeing many of my old friends, as well s the many people here who have become new friends with our company’s involvement in Colorado. I hope you consider the Hewlett-Packard Company an important partner in the future progress of Colorado. We will do our best to justify your confidence and your faith in the industrial future of your state.”

 

9/17/66, Copy of typewritten “excerpt” from this speech

6/23/66, Copy of letter from Packard to Mark W. Cordell, Manager Loveland Chamber of Commerce. Packard confirms he will talk at the Industrial Days Banquet in Loveland on September 17^th.

7/17/66, Letter to Packard from Mark Cordell,  giving details of the banquet day.

8/5/66, Copy of letter to Dave Kirby from Paul Rice, President First National Bank, Loveland, CO,  inviting the Kirby’s to the dinner.

9/27/66, Letter to Packard from John R. McKeown, saying he enjoyed Packard’s talk.

9/21/66, Letter to Packard from Carl N. DeTemple, Secretary Colorado Association of Commerce and Industry. Congratulating Packard on speech and asking for a copy.

9/30/66, Copy of letter from David Kirby to Carl DeTemple sending a copy of Packard’s speech.

Box 1, Folder 27 – HP Management

 

January 12, 1966, Management Conference, Monterey

 

1/1/66, No agenda is included, but some brief notes in Packard’s handwriting is in the folder:

Profit

Goal 9%

Mfg. Div 23%

 

Getting Business 10%

Growth 16% for 1966

How we get there

New Products

Better Mousetrap theory

3/31/66, A letter from Cort Van Rensselaer to Department heads sharing feedback from     discussion groups at the Jan. 12. conference.

1/19/66, Agenda for a “Little Monterey” meeting to share discussions with a broader         audience.

Box 2, Folder 65 – General Speeches              

9/22/65, Card from Robert M Reese of U. S. Department of Commerce requesting a copy of Packard’s talk to the ASME.

Box 2, Folder 66 – General Speeches

 

May 11, 1965, Breakfast talk to Menlo School and College, students and faculty of School of Business, Menlo Park, CA

 

5/11/65, Handwritten outline by Packard of talk he plans to give. No complete text.

 

1.   Impression of U.S. prosperity and industrial strength from trip around country.  Contrast with pessimistic view from reading headlines and letters to editor, particularly in local papers and student papers such as Stanford Daily.

 

1. As students of business you should be impressed with figures

 

GNP 1960 – 500 [billion?]

1964 – 625

1965 – Average above 650

1975 – 1980 above 1000

 

England 90

France 85

Russia 350-375

 

Longest period of growth with exception of World War II.

 

Personal income 1960 –  400 [million?]

1964 –  500 +25%

 

Prices                  1957-1959 = 100

Wholesale        1964 – 99.5%

Consumer        1964 – 109%

Cost of Living

 

Services – 115%

Food      – 107%

Other     –  105%

 

Savings and liquid assets

1960 – 400 billion

1964 – 500 billion

 

Economic Advisors of Business Council – 1965 continue strong

 

Gordon Aelsley [?] Chamber of Economic Advisors – 1965 strong

 

New records in almost every area

Automobile – new high

Appliances – +20% gains

Color TV – sales over 2 million

Housing – possibly down

 

Balance of payments

Complex problem

Goods and services – 8 billion

Other transactions –  11 billion

Net                         approximately 3 billion

 

Build up of dollars more than adequate to finance normal world trade.

 

Trends

U.S. economy healthy and competitive, comparison with five years ago.

Airlines  –  PAA, TWA

Railroads  –  employment down, profit up

Steel Industry – innovation

 

 

Consumer Products – up 20%

Transistor radios from Japan – now American competitive

Trends in business management

R & D emphasis on innovation

HP example

Better products

Automation and labor efficiency

 

Maturity in Business/Labor /Government relationships

Business management responsibility to employees and public at large not just to stockholders.

Long range planning

 

Cooperation with government

Great change since Kennedy, Walter Heller

 

Government has recognized that small enterprise earnings and profits are necessary for a healthy economy

Tax reduction and reform investment credit and depreciated new capital equipment.

 

1960 –  35 billion

1965 – 50 billion

1963 –1965 gone from 38 to 50 billion

 

Consumer purchasing power is important. Individual tax reduction, wages, and productivity must be kept in balance. Automobile settlement excessive. Others about in line.

 

Business community is learning that problems of a complex economy are complex and simple solutions will not suffice.

 

Balanced budget not sole determinant of healthy of healthy economy. Moderate deficits manageable in growing economy.

 

Civil rights.

Business has made great contribution – jobs and education will determine outcome – . not voting rights – equality cannot be legislated, but equality of opportunity can be provided by joint efforts of business government and community at large.

 

Despite troubles of world you are entering the greatest opportunity to make contribution to welfare of the world. Our private enterprise system is hope of world. I wish you well.”

 

Packard wrote out another page marked ”fill in if time” on which he outlined a  profile of managers:

 

“What you should be if you want to be a key business executive.

Scientific American

 

% Average                   %Population

Religion

Episcopalian   30                                            3

Politics                                    % Republican              more than 1900

Railroads                     70%

Public Util.                  71                    less than 1900

Industrial                     77                    same as 1900

Largest                        75                    more than 1900

Smallest                       79                    more than 1900

Father’s profession

Lawyer                        5.1%                1950 largest

Clergyman                   6.2                   1900 largest

 

Family status

Poor                            12%

Medium                      51

Wealthy                      36

College education

 

5/11/65,  Typewritten page of statistics with some handwritten notes by Packard,

about US balance of payments

3/18/65, Letter to Packard from William E. Kratt, President Menlo School and College, asking Packard would speak to students at breakfast meeting.

4/19/65, Letter to Packard from Bruce Carr Smith of Menlo College, thanking him for agreeing to speak at their breakfast.

5/14/65, Letter to Packard from Robert R. Gros, complimenting him on his talk

5/17,65,  Letter to Packard from Bruce Carr Smith thanking him for participating.

5/20/65, Letter to Packard from William E. Kratt, thanking him for participating.

 

 

 

Box 2, Folder 67 –  General Speeches

 

May 17, 1965, Business Management and Social Responsibility, Children’s Home Society of California, Palo Alto, CA

5/17/65, Typewritten copy of the text of this speech.

Packard the members of this society on their “valuable contribution” of having placed 1273 children for adoption in 1964,  and segues into a discussion of the contribution of private organizations saying “Private endeavors for the benefit of society have a long and honorable tradition in the history of the Western world. Our earliest, and some of our most distinguished, educational institutions began from – and still depend on – private initiative.

 

“Many other important institutions devoted to the well-being of people were founded, as was yours, because an individual was concerned about the welfare of his fellow citizens.

 

Packard talks of  how the government has taken over many segments of social welfare and how “There has evolved over the years in the United States, a unique blending of private and government efforts..

 

“Much of the involvement of the government has come about as a result of the magnitude of the job to be accomplished. Education, for example, is an area so comprehensive and complex that it is hard to imagine the system minus the governmental role.

 

“And yet, we find private schools and universities still holding positions of great importance. They have a unique position of leadership because they can concentrate on quality – they have the freedom and flexibility to nurture innovation – they can institute special programs, devote individual attention to outstanding students, and often develop areas of excellence which are difficult – or impossible – for public supported institutions to match.

 

Packard hastens to say that public “are doing a good job, too. Having been closely involved with the field of education over the past number of years, I am convinced that our pluralistic approach has given us educational opportunities for our young people far superior to those found anywhere else in the world.”

 

While Packard feels “there are many…areas of our society where government agencies look to private organizations for leadership and standards of excellence.

 

“But unfortunately, during the past few years we have seen a growing number of critics of private endeavor. We have been bombarded with books such as “The Hidden Persuaders,” “The Organization Man,” The Status Seekers and Life in the Crystal Palace,” just to name a few. These books, and others, are focusing their attention on the business community -–but the private charitable organization is under attack as well.

 

“To give a recent example, in his 1964 annual report of the Carnegie Corporation, John Gardner outlines very well the nature of some of these current threats to private charity. The attack, as he points out, is aimed at the tax deductibility of charitable contributions, and at the very existence of charitable foundations – on which much of our private social benefits depend.

 

“The argument goes that because tax money actually belongs to the government, when an individual receives a tax deduction for his gift, he is in fact giving away the government’s money, not his own.”

 

“Essentially, the same arguments are used against private foundations. They insist that the wealth an individual is able to accumulate [sic] in his lifetime should not be used for purposes he selects, such as the establishment of a charitable foundation. This money, too, they say, belongs to the government.”

 

And Packard warns that “the institutions of private charity and private enterprise are under unnecessary attack, and vigilance is required for survival.

 

“ However, it is not necessary to use common dangers to support the proposition that private charity has much in common with the private business community. There are enough common goals and ideals to do that.

 

“John Gardner used the words “private initiative for the common good” to define the private charity, and I believe that it is as good a definition as I have ever heard to also define the motives and aspirations of the modern business manager.”

 

Packard says he feels the word “modern” is appropriate because he sees that “there has been a great change in the business manager profession over recent decades. He recalls a discussion with some business people 15-20 years previously “when the prevailing view was that the primary objective of the management function was to make a profit. Employee relations were directed toward maintaining production and profit, without regard for the social consequences. The concept that labor was a commodity to be bought and sold on the open market prevailed. Involvement in community or public affairs was measured in terms of the specific benefits it would buy. “Caveat emptor” still persisted in dealing with customers….the concept of “what’s good for business is good for the country” still prevailed to a large degree.”

 

However, Packard says that “There were, during these years, business managers who felt differently about their responsibilities. They had recognized, and honored, the view that every employee is a human being – that he has his aspirations, his home, and his family – and that in making his contribution to his job he deserved consideration beyond the mechanical payment of an hourly or daily wage. Had more managers realized this sooner, there would have been little need for the unions to take up the battle in behalf of the worker of that day.

 

“Some managers were also beginning to recognize that they had a broader responsibility to the communities in which their business were established than could be defined on a “quid pro quo” basis. They realized that their enterprises were an integral part of the society at large and that they did in fact have a responsibility to make sure their organizations were good corporate citizens.

 

“These same managers realized that they had a mandate to give their customers the best products, and the best services, that could be produced. They had come to the conclusion that the seller had a responsibility to make sure the buyer did not have to beware.”

 

Packard feels that since WWII “this new attitude has come to a high state of maturity. It has a strong effect on the people who make up the management profession today. It is beginning to become an accepted and expected philosophy by the general public.”

 

Today’s managers, Packard feels, “…are firm believers in, and standard bearers for, the free enterprise system, of course. They know they must manage their organizations to make a profit. But – and this is the crux of the management philosophy of our age – they look on profit as a measure of the contribution their organizations are making to society, and on free enterprise as the vehicle essential for achieving the social aspirations of all of the people.”

 

Packard compares economic progress in the U.S. since 1960 with that of other countries. “In the year of 1960, our U.S. gross national product …was about 500 billion dollars. In this year of 1965, the figure will be in excess of 650 billion dollars. This is an increase of 150 billion dollars in goods and services produced by the American free enterprise system in five years.

 

“The next largest economy in the free world today is that of West Germany, which will have a gross national product in 1965 of about 114 billion dollars. The West Germany economic system has performed the best of all of these other countries, and is the one most closely aligned with the American system, particularly with respect to the individual initiative and enthusiasm.

 

“Even so, as you can see, we have added to our economy an amount nearly one and one –half times as large as their total economy in just the past five years.

 

“France…will have a total economy in 1965 if around 86 billion dollars. We are adding this amount to our economy every three to four years..

 

“Great Britain has an economy only slightly larger than France. With a population about one-quarter that of the United States, they produce only about one-seventh the goods and services.

 

Packard describes “the sad plight of Great Britain….Here is a country which once had the strongest economy in the world. Her navies ruled the seas. Her products – the epitome of quality and value – were sought throughout the world. She was the champion for the free enterprise of business.

 

“Today, Great Britain is no longer competitive in world trade. The integrity of the pound is upheld only by the charity of her friends through the largest loans ever granted from the international monetary fund.

 

“The spirit of her people is broken. They enjoy a wage level about a quarter of that found in America. They can’t afford housing, so the government supplies it for them on a subsidized basis. They can’t afford medical care, so the government provides medicare. The whole country has forsaken free enterprise for socialism.

 

“There is a lesson here for us. We are being presented with the largest dose of public welfare ever received by any nation. The War of Poverty Commission has billions of dollars available to it to combat any local economic situation they can find, which might possibly improve the standard of living for a few people.

 

“The Administration seems convinced that private initiative in medical care is a failure, and that only the federal government can solve the problem.

 

“They are convinced that education needs federal support – and if you analyze the federal education bill you will find that they intend to give this support to education in every state whether it is needed or not.

 

“Under the present administration we are walking in some of the same footprints made by Great Britain. If we continue along this same path, it is bound to have the same results for us that it has had for them.”

 

“I firmly believe that free enterprise in social welfare is an absolute necessity to support free enterprise in business. Once social welfare becomes a government monopoly – as it is rapidly becoming – it is only a matter of time before we see it requires only another series of steps to put business under government monopoly. And then, we will be following the lead of Great Britain in moving from one of the world’s greatest economies to the position of a second-rate nation.

 

“But fortunately we are not there yet and to get back to the present economic situation, I would emphasize that in 1965 our gross national product will exceed the total of all the other countries of the free world combined..

 

“Estimates on the economies of Russia and China are hard to come by – but I have heard reports that Russia produces something in the neighborhood of 350 billion dollars.

 

“If we add up all the known free world economies, and the estimates for the communist-dominated portion of the world, it is within reason to say that the United States produces some 35 to 40 percent of the world’s economic strength – and all of this with some 7 percent of the world’s population.

 

“In light of these impressive figures, it is surprising that the image of the business manager remains so poor. At least one survey I have seen with the past few years indicates that industry generally is gaining on the government and labor in receiving a favorable vote of confidence by the public – but on the reverse side of the coin, business still holds a rather strong lead among those people who have an intense unfavorable attitude toward one of the three major categories of business, government and labor.”

 

“We in private industry, have much to do to improve the image others have of us – but the image is less important than the performance. Management has accomplished quite a bit already, and it is going in the right direction.

 

“Our philosophies are the same as yours. Our goals, by necessity, must be on a broader spectrum, but then collectively we are much larger, In dealing with the more all-encompassing segments of public welfare, we are not forgetting the individual private organizations such as yours that provide the day-by-day services that are so important to, and so thankfully received by the people of this country.

We will do all that we can to strengthen the public’s realization of the significance of the role played by private charitable organization.

 

“And, more important, the private business community will continue to help you and all of the other private charitable organizations in the task you have set for yourselves.

 

“For our future n the American society, and for that matter, in the world society, is closely interwoven with yours.

 

“Both are the essence of private initiative for the public good.”

 

3/28/65, Letter to Packard from Charlotte De Armond , with Children’s Home Society, expressing appreciation that he has indicated willingness to Annual Meeting speaker.

3/31/65, Letter to Packard from Charlotte De Armond asking for a title for his forthcoming speech.

4/6/65, Copy of letter from Packard to Charlotte De Armond giving the title as “Business Management and Social Responsibility.”

4/17/65, Text of a speech by Henry H. Fowler, Secretary of the Treasury. Marked for release to news papers April 17, 1965.

4/22/65, Publicity release announcing May 17 dinner with Packard as speaker.

5/27/65, Letter to Packard from Charlotte De Armond thanking him for speaking. Also saying she had sent copies to all their District Directors.

5/28/65, Letter to Packard from Harry Goodfriend, thanking him for speaking.

Also included are several fact sheets and other reference material.

 

 

 

Box 2, Folder 68 – General Speeches

 

May 31, 1965, Remarks honoring Frederick E. Terman, Stanford University Convocation.

 

5/31/65, Typewritten copy of this speech.

 

Packard says he appreciates the opportunity to honor Fred Terman, but saddened to see his career at Stanford come to an end. “He represents to me perhaps more than any other single individual what Stanford is and what Stanford has been.

 

“That he has in very large measure contributed to the ending of the old and the beginning of the new does not alleviate my concern. I am not at all sure the greatness Stanford is seeking for the future will in every way surpass the greatness of Fred Terman’s days at this University.”

 

Packard tells how he first became acquainted with Professor Terman. “Among my hobbies was Amateur Radio and I spent a spare hour now and then in the radio shack in the old attic of the Engineering Building. Professor Terman’s laboratories were next door. Some times he would stop to chat for a minute or two. After several such brief visits, I was amazed to find that he knew a great deal about me….He knew what courses I had taken and what my grades had been He had even looked up my high school record and my scores in the entrance examinations. Fred Terman had developed his characteristic thoroughness over thirty years ago.

 

Enrolled in Terman’s course in his senior year, Packard found him to be “a great teacher. He had the ability to make a very complex problem seem the essence of simplicity. He would eliminate the unimportant factors from complex mathematical analysis and reduce the answer to terms even I could understand. This was the secret of his book on Radio Engineering. This is why this book became the most widely used text on this subject in the world.”

 

“The highlight of his course for me was the opportunity to visit some of the laboratories and factories in this area. Here for the first time I saw young entrepreneurs working on new devices in firms which they had established. “

 

Packard relates how  “Up until that time I hoped I might be fortunate enough to get a job with one of the great electrical companies like G. E. or Westinghouse. But this was the Fall of 1933 and the Spring of 1934. There were nowhere enough jobs available for all of us who were graduating. Thus it was Professor Terman who convinced me that if I could not find a job to my liking, I could perhaps make one for myself. I did get a job at G.E. gut Professor Terman kept in touch with me, and with Bill Hewlett, and he helped to bring us back to Palo Alto together to begin the business venture we have been struggling with ever since.”

 

“The electronic industries we visited around here in 1934 employed only a few hundred people, and had a combined annual volume of probably less than a million dollars. Today, the electronics industry of the Bay Area employees [sic] about 45,000 people, and will produce this year three-quarter billion dollars worth of goods and services Fred Terman, more than any other single individual is responsible for this amazing development.”

 

Packard tells how it was Professor Terman’s vision that encouraged the academic community and the business community to work together for the benefit of both.

 

“Many of the benefits Stanford has received from its close association with business and industry are evident to all. By 1955 gifts to Stanford from Corporations had reached the level of $500,000 annually. In the first eight months of this fiscal year they have been $2.2 Million.”

 

“Not so well known, particularly in academic circles, is the fact that business leadership in America has been rapidly developing a sense of broad social responsibility. Business leaders are taking an active and a constructive role in civil rights. They are becoming much more aware of the importance of the arts and the humanities. And the social sciences. A great many of them fully recognize the importance of the great universities like Stanford to the welfare and the progress of society at large.”

 

Packard tells how other universities have developed close associations with industry in their areas – but not all. ”There is little such development around Yale and Princeton. Only a small amount of industrial development in the Boston area can be attributed to Harvard. Purdue has a great engineering school, as does the University of Illinois, and Michigan State. Leaders from each of these schools, as well as others, have asked me how they can establish a relationship between their University and industry, such as we have at Stanford. My answer is simple – I say “Go out and find yourself a Fred Terman.”

 

Packard talks about the characteristics ”which have made Fred Terman one of the great men of Stanford….important intellectual contributions to his academic discipline …a great teacher in his ability to convey his subject matter to his ….Equally important student, he knew his students personally, and he took a great interest in each of them. He never seemed to consider Stanford just as a community of scholars, or as an Ivory Tower separated from the practical affairs of the world. Rather, he built a strong bond of understanding between the business community related to his discipline and his department in the University.”

 

Packard notes several teachers and professors who have been a part of the long tradition at Stanford of combining the intellectual and the practical,  and adds that “Fortunately we have many young men on the faculty today following in these footsteps.”

 

“Members of the Stanford faculty from the beginning through the years of Fred Terman’s career have had a long and distinguished tradition of active involvement in the practical affairs around them. It is almost as though they were guided by Senator Stanford’s desire – that Stanford be a practical school – not one devoted to educating useless men.

 

“Over the past few years Stanford has been undergoing a great change. Fortunately many new and distinguished professors have joined this faculty. Many of these new people are sympathetic to the Stanford tradition. There are some who do not seem to understand that Stanford has a great tradition of being itself. They would propose to remold this University in the image of Harvard, or Yale, or Oxford, Paris or Heidelberg..

 

“And so as Fred Terman’s career at Stanford comes to an end, and we move on to the future, it is my sincere hope that we will continue to honor him by persevering some of the great things he has given our University. In the words of Tom Barclay – “I would like to believe that you will take with you, as a heritage, something of the spirit of the old Stanford, as well as the benefits of the new.”

 

5/31/65, Printed program for the Stanford University Convocation.

4/28/65, Letter to Packard from J. K. E. Wallace Sterling, President of Stanford, Asking if Packard would be willing to speak at the Convocation honoring Fred Terman.

5/22/65, Copy of advance press release from Stanford regarding the Convocation.

5/28/65, Copy of letter to Dr. J. E. Wallace Sterling from Herbert Hoover  Jr. saying he will be unable to attend the Convocation for Dr. Terman.

5/28/65, Copy of letter to Dr. Frederick E. Terman from Herbert Hoover, Jr. saying how much he regrets not being able to attend the Convocation.

5/31/65, Copy of press release from Stanford telling of the Convocation.

6/1/65, Newspaper clipping regarding the Convocation.

7/29/65, Handwritten letter to Packard from Mrs. Allan E. Charles saying she regretted they could not attend the Convocation.

7/29/65, Letter to Packard from Ira S. Lillick saying he had enjoyed Packard’s speech.

 

 

 

Box 2, Folder 69 – General Speeches

 

July 15, 1965, “Uncommon Man” degree for Herbert Hoover, Stanford Associates

7/15/65, Copy of text of remarks made by Packard at Stanford Associates “Uncommon Man” Degree Dinner

Packard says Herbert Hoover “was definitely not a common man. He was a humble man, and one who showed great consideration and compassion and understanding of his fellow-man – but he was not common.

 

“”It was evident early in his career – through his achievements as an engineer, as a humanitarian, throughout his distinguished government career, and by his leadership here in America and abroad, that Herbert Hoover was one of the great men of our time.”

 

Packard recites a quotation from Hoover regarding the career of engineering where Hoover says “It is a great profession. There is the fascination  of watching a figment of the imagination emerge through the aid of science to a plan on paper. Then it moves to realization in stone or metal or energy. Then it brings jobs and homes to men. Then it elevates the standards of living and adds to the comforts of life. That is the engineer’s high privilege.”

 

Packard says Hoover spoke of the American way of life and our free enterprise system, referring to the business, industrial and financial managers as “rugged individualists.”

 

Packard continues to quote Hoover discussing managers and saying “they are self-reliant, rugged, God-fearing people of indomitable courage. They were the ones who asked only for freedom of opportunity and an equal chance. They gave America a genius that distinguished our people from any other in the world.”

 

Packard says that “This matter of being an individual – an uncommon man – was a subject close to his heart. He fully realized that social, economic, and intellectual progress depended upon these relatively rare men. He recognized the importance – the absolute necessity – for individuals who could rise above the masses and provide creative leadership.”

 

Packard then includes I statement of Hoover’s wherein he decries the idea of the “Common Man”. He says most Americans would dislike being referred to as “common”. Hoover believes most Americans believe in “equal opportunity for all, but we know that this includes the opportunity to rise to leadership – in other words, to be uncommon.”

 

Speaking of Hoover Packard says “A truly uncommon man he was, and an uncommon man he will be remembered in the ages to come.

 

“It is my great privilege and honor, then, to present at this time the Stanford Associates Uncommon Man Degree posthumously to Herbert Clark Hoover. The degree reads”

 

“To all whom these letters shall come, greeting: The governors of the Stanford Associates, on the recommendation of his many friends, and by virtue of the privilege in them vested, have therefore conferred on  HERBERT CLARK HOOVER, who has exceeded every standard of loyalty and service to Stanford University, the degree of Uncommon Man, with all the rights, privileges, honors and respect thereunto appertaining. Given in the assemblage of Stanford Associates on the fifteenth day of July in the year of our lord one thousand, none hundred and sixty-five.”

 

“Signed, “Duncan McBryde, President of the Associates.” And “J. E. Wallace Sterling, President of the University.”

 

“Mr. Allan Hoover will receive the degree in behalf of his father. I present it to him now with pride and gratitude.”

 

7/15/65, Printed invitation to the dinner honoring Herbert Hoover.

7/15/65, Time schedule for the dinner program and speakers.

7/15/65,  Note to which are attached lists of  the guests.

6/14/65, Letter to Packard from Duncan McBryde inviting him to the dinner honoring Hoover.

6/25/65,  Copy of a letter to Allan Hoover from Jack L. Shepard giving details of the dinner schedule.

6/23/65, Copy of a letter to Duncan McBryde from Allan Hoover saying he will come and accept the degree on behalf of his father.

6/29/65, Copy of a letter to Jack L. Shepard acknowledging receipt of the dinner schedule etc.

6/30/65, Note to Packard from Duncan McBryde enclosing copy of time schedule.

7/3/65, Letter to Packard from Andrew M. Doty providing a draft of remarks Packard may use for his talk presenting the degree.

7/6/65, Copy of letter from Packard to Herbert Hoover Jr. expressing the hope he will be able to attend.

7/12/65, News release from Stanford telling of the degree award.

7/16/65, Reprint of an article in the Los Angeles Times on the award, attached is a card from Otis Chandler

7/21/65, Letter to Packard from Arthur C. Oppenheimer II thanking Packard for inviting him to the dinner.

7/23/65, Letter to Packard from Duncan McBryde thanking him for his help in the dinner.

7/21/65, Letter to Packard from H. Edward Hanson requesting a copy of Packard’s speech

7/30/65, Copy of letter from Packard to H. Edward Hanson enclosing a copy of the speech he made at the dinner.

8/2/65, Letter to Packard from Helen M Sheldon, Secretary to Jeremiah Milbank, thanking Packard for sending copies of pictures taken at the dinner, which she will send on to Mr. Milbank.

8/3/65, Letter to Packard from H. Edward Hanson, requesting  a dozen more copies of Packard’s speech.

Also in the folder are many letters to Packard indicating acceptance or regrets to the dinner invitation.

 

 

Box 2, Folder 70 – General Speeches

 

July 20, 1965, Dedication of Herbert Hoover Room, The Hoover Institution, Friends of Stanford, Hoover Institution, Stanford.

7/20/65, Typewritten text of Packard’s speech at this dedication.

Standing in the Herbert Hoover Room Packard says “As one stands in this room and surveys the exhibits which demonstrate the wide range of accomplishments of this man – his service to humanity through his relief work – his public service under five presidents of the United States, and as president himself – the honorary degrees and awards he received – the books he wrote – and many other evidences of the great works of his life and of the esteem in which he was held by millions of people throughout the world, it is indeed gratifying to recall that he considered this institution the most important work of his lifetime.”

 

To Packard, “…this seems to emphasize the fact that the welfare of humanity was the great motivating aspiration of his life. This concern for human welfare, this love of fellow man, was amply demonstrated in everything else he did..

 

Packard recalls that Hoover began his career as an engineer and businessman, and “When speaking of his profession, he emphasized its social benefits – the “unending stream of goodness”, “jobs and homes to men.” He said engineering “elevates the standard of living and adds to the comforts of life.”

 

“His early devotion to the welfare of mankind no doubt stemmed from his Quaker upbringing and it led him from his career as an engineer and businessman to devote the last 50 years of his life to public service. Time and again his high motives called similar response from those who knew him and who worked with him. As a food administrator during World War I he called for men to volunteer as he had done. But more important, he relied largely on voluntary cooperation in solving the many problems of maintaining an adequate supply and distribution of essential foodstuffs to mount a successful war effort.”

 

“And in his administration of this program, although there were great and serious difficulties, most of these were solved because the business community rose above their selfish interests under his leadership.

 

“And his leadership toward a higher ethic in business affairs continued as he took charge of the Department of Commerce and introduced many policies and programs which helped the business community better serve the public welfare.”

 

Packard says advancing human welfare became a dominant motivation for Hoover as he devoted his life to public service. “Service to humanity, however noble, was not a common characteristic of the world of commerce and business during the early decades of the 20^th Century. Profit was the businessman’s dominant objective and human considerations were secondary. Labor was considered to be only a commodity to be bought and sold on the open market and the best advice for the customer was “caveat emptor.”

 

However, Packard sees that this attitude has undergone a “momentous change” in the last few decades. “Businessmen now fully recognize they have a responsibility to their employees, to their customers, and the welfare of society at large. Mr. Hoover’s influence, by way of his example and by way of his constructive thoughts and actions throughout his many years of public service, have had no small effect in contributing to a higher ethic in the administration of business and industry.”

 

Noting that the Hoover Room is just across the way from the new Business School building, Packard hopes “that future generations of students studying for a career in business will have the opportunity to visit this room and thereby receive some inspiration toward the high ethical standards which are reflected by the life work of this great man.”

 

Turning to Hoover’s contributions to Stanford he says he won’t try to recount them all, “But I think it worth noting that he served as a trustee from 1912 until his death last year – over a half century of devoted, uninterrupted service.

 

“He established the Building and Grounds Committee of the Board in 1914 and had much to do with the University’s early architecture and campus planning. In 1936 he took leadership in a petition to the Superior Court of Santa Clara County to obtain authority for the Trustees to invest the University’s endowment funds in common stock. Until then the investments had been in seasoned bonds and first mortgages only and amounted to $24 million. As of last month the appreciation of the stock portfolio amounted to $47 million, approximately twice the value of the total endowment at the time of the court action initiated by Mr. Hoover.”

 

“His health prevented his coming to the campus during the last few years of his life, but he continued to serve his Alma Mater. His last great contribution was as Honorary Chairman of the PACE program, and many of our major gifts during the past three years were a direct result of his participation by way of letters written to prospective donors or meetings in his apartment at the Waldorf Towers.

 

“It is a great American and a great son of Stanford we are honoring today.

 

“It is my hope that the Herbert Hoover Room will serve as a continuing inspiration to all here present and to all who follow to assure that the Hoover Institution on the Stanford campus achieves the lofty goals set by its founder.

 

“It is also my hope that the Institution will serve as a great beacon on the path of world peace, and as a wellspring of dedication and faith for the American society which Herbert Hoover loved so well.”

 

7/20/65, Printed invitation to the dedication.

6/9/65, Note from Margaret Paull to Packard informing him of Dr. Campbell’s call inviting him to the dedication ceremony.

6/25/65, Letter to Packard from W. Glenn Campbell giving details on dedication.

 

 

 

Box 2, Folder 71 – General Speeches

 

July 29, 1965, Article “A Management Code of Ethics,” Supervisory Management Magazine, AMA, New York

 

7/29/65, Copy of typewritten text of article.

 

In this article Packard expresses the thought that “One of our country’s greatest assets – and perhaps its most powerful weapon in the struggle against Communism – is the immense strength and vitality of our economic system.

 

“We need to remind ourselves of this fact from time to time because of the tremendous responsibility it imposes on business and industrial management. This responsibility includes the continuing obligation to produce goods and services of the highest quality, to increase productive efficiency, to maintain high levels of employment, and to do the many other things required to keep our economy strong and growing.”

 

However, Packard adds that “The role of management…extends far beyond these traditional concepts. It includes broader social responsibilities which, until recent years, went either unnoticed or unheeded. Not until World Wear II was there any noticeable effort by business and industrial leaders to participate in l0cal, national and foreign affairs – outside of normal business activity. During the first 40 or 50 years of this century the great majority of managers had one overriding objective in the conduct of their businesses. That objective was to make a profit.”

 

While stating that these earlier managers “gave us a rich and valuable heritage” Packard adds that “Today’s business manager must add to this heritage, not merely use it. He can best do this by first realizing that profit is not the proper end and aim of management, but only that which makes all of the proper ends and aims possible. And a very proper end is social progress.

 

“Evolution of social progress is achieved through three mechanisms. One is a build-up of countervailing forces of power. The union movement is one example, while another, and more recent example, is the civil rights movement.

 

“A second mechanism is the intervention of a super authority, such as our federal government.

 

“The third, and most constructive mechanism, is one where the people in a position to improve a social situation, do so by a process of self-enlightened action.”

 

And Packard sees “…that within the past 10 or 15 years a large section of American management has acknowledged the superiority of the latter method, has begun adjusting to the concept, and has, in some cases, made an attempt to disclose this new posture to the various publics with which it deals.”

 

Packard says that the AMA has encourages the adoption of statements of ethics, and, “   in effect, they have helped build corporate codes of ethics out of the personal ethics of the modern manager.

 

“A code of ethics is a code of conduct not imposed by low, not imposed by common custom, but self-imposed because you believe in it. It comes from a belief in some higher selfless spirit and is directed toward the achievement of a high objective.”

 

“The great ethic, around which Western Civilization has developed, is the Judaic-Christian Code. It comes presumably from divine authority and has the highest objective for its individual adherents…a place in heaven for eternity.

 

“But, more important, at least for this discussion, it has a high worldly objective, the brotherhood of man. The great accomplishments of the free world come from its broad acceptance. The theme is common for all, whether it be expressed as the “Golden Rule,” the “Ten Commandments,” the Sermon on the Mount” or from the teachings of the Talmud. It has had a tremendous impact in a worldly sense. All of those things which we cherish in our Western Civilization have come from the common acceptance of this code throughout the Western world.”

 

Packard points out that nearly every organization in this country  – the Rotarians, the Kiwanians,  the Boy Scouts –  have “grown around its own code of ethics based generally, of course, upon the Judaic-Christian Code.

 

“It seems strange indeed, then, that the great fraternity of business management as a whole has not developed a code of ethics of more common acceptance. It is not only strange; it is unfortunate, because no other group in the country with a common interest has so much influence over so many people. Our influence cuts across party lines; its extent knows no race, color or creed. We affect, in fact control, every media of mass communication.

 

“But, too often we continue to stick to the proposition that we are in business primarily to make a profit. There are some very good reasons for this in the very nature of a corporation. As managers, we are agents of our stockholders; they invest in our businesses to make a profit. We have a responsibility to do this for them, and we can point with pride at our achievements of producing goods and services that have raised the standard of living in this country to a level almost beyond belief.

 

“But, for all these achievements there are signs that American business has not quite measured up in the eves of the world. “

 

“We also know from experience that people overseas like our products but question our ethics.

 

“We in private industry have much to do to improve the image others have of us. Perhaps translation of our own personal codes of ethics into our management jobs is not enough. If we are to assume the rather awesome social responsibilities we have at home and abroad, perhaps we need to develop a clear-cut management code of ethics which can stand on its own and be accepted and supported throughout the business community.

 

“One of the reasons we have not done this is because we have not yet agreed upon a higher aim – the preservation of our business freedom on which to base a code of ethics.

 

“As a suggestion, here a few tenets that might be considered for a management code. These are not one man’s ideas. They come from statements business leaders have made over the past several years.

 

“One tenet is to manage our business enterprises first and foremost so we make a contribution to society. If we provide a service, it should be the best possible service, oriented toward the public welfare. If we make a product, it should represent the utmost in quality and value. This is, of course, precisely what the most successful businesses do.

 

“Another tenet is to recognize the dignity and personal worth of every person we employ. In subscribing to this tenet, we must provide an opportunity for employees to share in the company’s success, provide them job security based on job performance, and most importantly, recognize their need for personal satisfaction that comes from a sense of accomplishment.

 

“This concept has achieved some acceptance. It must be emphasized that the objective of this proposed tenet is not simply to make our organizations more efficient, although this will certainly be one result. This ethic, however we choose to express it, must be based solidly on the premise that labor is not a commodity to be bought  and sold in the marketplace.

 

“The third tenet has to do with management’s responsibility to society at large. Our churches and schools play a great part in the intellectual and moral training on which we rely every day and rarely give a second thought. Many of the tools and techniques we use in our day-to-day work have emanated from the efforts of our great universities in extending the frontiers of knowledge.

 

“We have a responsibility for our private charities. Not only should we provide them money from our businesses and encourage our employees to give them support, but we should also participate actively in the establishment and achievement of their goals. Whenever possible, social welfare should be the responsibility of privately supported institutions.

 

“The fourth tenet in our code should be directed toward a better understanding of the nature of profit. Profit is the monetary measurement of our contribution to society. It is the difference between the value of the goods and services we give to society, and the value we take from it. Profit is the insurance we have that our business will continue to grow and flourish. With a good profit we can meet our obligations to our customers, to employees, and to the public at large. We can also provide our stockholders with a fair return to encourage their continues investment as well. And, most importantly, it is the wherewithal we need to assist in the furtherance of man’s progress.”

 

Packard tells of attending a conference the previous year, attended by a cross-section of business and industrial leaders, where they discussed how they could aid education, how they could help government do a better job, how they could influence international affairs, and many broad social problems. He says “They all believe, of course, that an adequate profit is necessary for a business to grow and flourish in our free enterprise economy. But that subject was not mentioned.”

 

“The contribution of the business community to this progress is gradually increasing. But the weight of our contribution will not be felt until we recognize that final and permanent change for the better in all human affairs comes not from strife between people, nor groups of people attempting to force acceptance of their views; not from power imposed by a super authority; but rather from self-enlightened action of all concerned – whether they be individuals or nations. This is the challenge and the responsibility of the free society. And, as part of the free society, it is the challenge and the responsibility of American business management as well.

 

A management code of ethics can provide direction of purpose, and significantly enough, at the same time provide an essential ingredient in the bonding and unification of the business community – a unification so necessary to the advancement of American business, the American economic and political system, and a free and enlightened world.”

 

3/65, Letter to Packard from Peter C. Reid, Associate Editor, Supervisory Management, asking if he would be willing to write a sequel to his article which appeared in their magazine in 1958.

6/2/65, Copy of a letter from Packard to Peter C. Reid saying he would write a sequel.

7/29/65, Letter to Peter C. Reid from David B. Kirby [HP Public relations Director] asking for the date the article will be published.

Box 1, Folder 24 – HP Management

 

January 15, 1965 – Management Conference, Monterey

 

1/15/65, Handwritten notes by Packard titled “Agenda”

New Product Program, what growth targets to expect

How to increase efficiency

Marketing

Government Contract policies and relations

Management Development

Personnel Policies

Objectives for 1965

Need to review objectives in light of changing environment for HP and in             light of expanding character of Company

Government market largest factor in the market for HP products

Government market leveling off and may go down

We must work harder to obtain our share of Government influenced                        market

Increase effort to expand involvement in non-government influenced                       markets

As to objectives Packard starts with Profit, saying “It should be our aim to maintain profit margins while building strength for the future. We have stated that overall corporate profit should be 8% after taxes…This will require that all divisions must move to an operating profit of 20% or more. Marketing costs per dollar of sales be held at or below present levels

 

“The second objective – to make important contributions to the field of electronic instrumentation….All of our experience indicates that the best opportunities are generated by the new products which really make a substantial contribution….Our success can in some measure be attributed to our specialization and concentration in the field of measuring instruments. We should not diversify our efforts too far but it seems clear there other opportunities within range of our abilities and these should be considered.”

1/15/65, Conference agenda and supporting material.

 

 

Box 1, Folder 25 – HP Management

 

March 20, 1965 – Talk to Salesmen, New York

 

From Packard’s notes for the talk:

Gives report on sales and shipments to date.

Corporate profits 8%, result of good management of costs

Result of good new product effort.

Appreciate excellent performance of all of you here.

Projections for future: double in five years, double everything we have done in last                        25.

Requires careful planning: financial, buildings, people

“As we look to future we must keep opportunity for each individual to have opportunity to achieve his aspirations  – to utilize his abilities for common benefit   of us all.”

 

“Our underlying objectives to find the best balance between the individual responsibility and…to combine with it a desire and incentive to join this in an objective to contribute to the strength of the corporation as a whole.”

 

“It is the underlying principle of these plans that you people in the marketing organization provide the most important unifying bond for the corporation. You are charged with the talk of bringing all of the manufacturing divisions together at the level of the customer.”

 

“We must meet the needs of our customers – this is the final aim of our combined effort – if we fail to do this we will fail in everything we want to achieve.”

 

“We have in our organization here in this room tonight the greatest collection of talent which has ever been assembled. There has never been a greater opportunity for any group of individuals – there has never been a greater opportunity for any company. It is up to all of us to do the job.”

 

 

Box 1, Folder 26 – September 23, 1965, – Sanborn Management Conference, Andover

 

9/23/65 Extracts from Packard’s handwritten notes for the event.

Big picture,  gives growth %. “Our goal to meet opportunities available to us –       15% per year [growth] – double in about 5 years…. Duplicate everything in the   next five years we have done in last twenty five.”

 

“If we are to meet our goals – to live to the opportunities that are available to us as an organization and as individuals we must look forward to change and to growth. I fully expect our entire organization to meet this challenge. I have no doubt we will be twice as big and I hope also twice as good five or six years from now than we are today”

9/23/65, Agenda for Conference and some supporting material.

Box 2, Folder 61 – General Speeches

 

March 1, 1964, Address at 100th Anniversary of the University of Denver, Alumnae of U. of Denver, Denver

 

3/1/64, Typewritten copy of text of Packard’s address on the above occasion.

 

Packard congratulates all on their “exiting new plans you have prepared and on the successful completion of the first stage of your program for New Resources….I hope it will come as no surprise to you when I suggest that your success in this great job is only the beginning. It is, indeed, only the beginning because Denver University has a unique opportunity for leadership, and is therefore in a position of great responsibility, and you as its Alumni and friends share that responsibility”

 

Packard says “We look to Denver along with our other great Universities for many things. We expect them to provide a good education for our youth, an education in breadth and depth beyond the level of common knowledge.”

 

“We expect our Universities to push forward the frontiers of knowledge, scientific knowledge by research and investigation, knowledge of human relations and human affairs by research and objective scholarly discussion. We expect them to disseminate this knowledge through graduate study and publications.

 

“We expect our Universities to train practitioners in law, in medicine, in engineering, in business administration, and in all of the other professions necessary for the proper working of our society.

 

“We expect them to be involved in public service, not only in local and national affairs, but in international affairs, as well.

 

“Above all we want our Universities to develop for us responsible and capable men and women who will match the demands of citizenship and leadership for the future of America.”

 

Referring to the New Goals and New Tasks prepared by Chancellor Alter and the faculty, Packard says “They are clearly the commitment of a great University to meet some of the challenges which have been placed at its door by a changing world – by an expanding universe.”

 

Packard feels the University of Denver has “a special reason to meet this challenge…because you have here the only great privately supported University in the Rocky Mountain Region. This is important not because your school, or any other privately supported school, is or should be better than the State supported institutions, but rather because it has turned out in education , as in other affairs, diversity is the key to freedom and to excellence for all.

 

“Our privately supported, and therefore hopefully independent, Universities provide this diversity with the State supported schools, They have a flexibility undertake new programs, to provide leadership in areas new and old, often not available to schools which must look to the legislatures for their support, and unfortunately sometimes, for their guidance.”

 

Packard takes on a brief history of the development of the University of Denver and of Universities in general. “Denver University began as the Colorado Seminary on March 5, 1864. Its founders stated that it was to be a “school of high grade – an ornament to our City and a fitting monument to her liberality”. Its first classes were limited to academic subjects, ancient and modern language and music. How then did it develop from this modest beginning to the great multi-faceted institution that it is today.

 

“There were many influences, local and national, that have moulded [sic] the development of your University. From the local community came the desire to nurture a great private school. The need of hour community for professional people, doctors, lawyers, had its influence. More recently, recognition by the community of the value of research – belief that an important research center here would be a great asset in the economic life of the community has been a factor. Beyond the needs of the community, and the vision of the leaders of Denver and of Colorado, your University has been profoundly influenced by the same factors which have influenced the University as an institution throughout America.”

 

”Harvard College was founded in 1636 “to advance learning and perpetuate it to posterity; dreading to leave an illiterate ministry to the churches”. William and Mary 1793, Yale 1701, Columbia in 1754 and others, have been founded early. All of these early schools were built on the pattern of the English colleges at Oxford and Cambridge. These early American Colleges were all influenced by the Christian humanism of the Seventeenth Century. They taught a relatively fixed body of knowledge, believed in the discipline of mental faculties, and had a strong undergirding of Christian moral philosophy, The virility of these influences was such that they can be clearly recognized in all of our Universities of today, and have a strong influence in the discussions as to what our Universities should be tomorrow.”

 

”The institution which has become the University of today, as contrasted with the college or professional school, can trace its antecedents back to Greece. It can find roots from the Middle Ages, was highly influenced, and still is, by the English pattern. But the essential characteristics which make a school a University came from Germany. The establishment of the University of Berlin in 1809, with emphasis on philosophy and science, on research and graduate instruction, and on the freedom of professors and students, was the beginning. The emphasis on research and graduate instruction was a clear break from the theological influence of the English pattern This broke the bonds of stagnation in the body of knowledge taught and preserved by the Universities, and opened the door to modern scientific progress.”

 

“There were also two unique and immensely important characteristics of our modern Universities which were developed here at home in America.

 

“The first was the concept that every young man or young woman of ability should have the opportunity for a higher education, regardless of his social standing or his financial ability”

 

Packard mentions the Morrill Act, passed two years before the Colorado Seminary was founded, and says that “This was the land grant act designed to support colleges to teach agricultural and industrial arts. This provided the foundation of engineering schools, agricultural schools, extension services, and a vast range of activities directed toward practical usefulness, and toward involvement with the community at large. It is a typically American development in education, and one which has enabled our institutions of higher education to contribute greatly in specific ways to the economic growth of our Country.

 

“[These] influences, the British, the German, and the American, have brought forth the University as we know it today, largely in the 100 year period between the founding of the Colorado Seminary of 1864 and the Denver University of 1964….As Clark Kerr, Chancellor of the University of California, puts it, “A University anywhere can aim no higher than to be as British as possible for the sake of the undergraduate, as German as possible for the sake of the graduates and the research personnel, as American as possible for the sake of the public at large, and then he goes on to add, “and as confused as possible for the sake of the preservation of the whole uneasy balance”.

 

Saying that “the desire to pursue this multiplicity of aims has brought about considerable confusion in all of our Universities”, Packard explains that the confusion exists “as to whether teaching or research is more important, …whether science or the humanities is the more worthy goal, …[and] whether learning should be pursued for its own sake or for the practical benefits which may derive to the student or the public at large.”

 

Regarding the “question of whether the four year undergraduate program belongs in the University”, Packard says that “[it] remains an integral part of the American University because of the Alumnae” who fondly remember “our four years at old U, our fraternity brothers, our classmates, our team. We have not been willing to let these educators corrupt our school with nothing but graduate study and research, even though this might, in fact, be a more effective utilization of the capability and resources of our University.”

 

Packard feels “There are bound to be some changes in the traditional structure of our Universities simply because there are so many things going on in the educational scene of today which are stretching the capacity of the traditional patterns. For one thing, there is just so much new knowledge being generated that a student can hardly obtain an education adequate for much of anything in just  four years. This problem has been solved in part by pushing down on the lower years. In science and engineering many subjects which used to be taught in graduate classes are now covered in the junior and senior years. Most high school students in the better high schools are ahead in many areas of the freshmen and sophomores of two or three decades ago.

 

“Another trend comes from the desire to reduce the old compartmentalization of subjects, to bring various areas of learning in a closer relationship with each other.”

 

“Everywhere we hear of a desire for more emphasis on liberal studies and humanities. This desire is not without merit. It comes on top of a clearly defined need for more education in science, engineering, law, medicine, and every other subject in the catalogue of courses. The need for more and better education is so great, we just should not allow ourselves to be limited to the same old packages we have been using for the last century.

 

“…we have large waves of new students clamoring for an education, knocking at the doors of all of our schools. Every private University is facing this problem in the same way – limit the size of the undergraduate college, let it seek excellence as its goal – and turn the rest of the youngsters over to the Governor. We should have some concern as to what will happen as our private Universities upgrade their admission standards in their search for excellence, turning increasing numbers of the sons and daughters of their friends and alumnae sway, while they look to these friends and alumnae to help pay for this excellence….how long it will continue to bear this strain remains to be seen.”

 

Packard expresses the opinion that “our past and present fixation on the importance of the undergraduate program and the Baccalaureate degree will eventually break down. Four years of college is no longer adequate to educate a “Responsible Individual” which your Chancellor has properly defined as one of your goals, for the complexities of modern society. The concept that one must become a Bachelor first, in order to proceed with advanced studies, stems from the 13th Century. It seems possible that it might eventually outlive its usefulness, if it has not already done so.”

 

“ Research is rapidly becoming a more important function of the American University. This trend has been accelerated during the past two decades by the rapidly expanding allocation of Federal funds for research….Funds for research, I presume, a good share from the Federal Government, are the largest single source of financial support for Denver University. This is true also for most other Universities today.”

 

…“So far the arguments are strong for a continual high level funding of research at our Universities but the growth of funds is likely to be slower in the future.

 

“Strangely enough there is a division of opinion among University people as to whether support of research at Universities by business and industry is a good thing for the University.  Where a University has an associated Research Institute, as you have here at Denver, or as we have at Stanford, industrial support seems to be preferred – although an examination of the research budgets often indicates this preference is frequently honored by its breach, rather than its observance.”

 

Packard speaks of the increasingly high cost of doing research and says that, “This almost malignant growth of research has generated active concern among many faculty, administrators, trustees, and alumni, who would like to see more emphasis placed on education in general, and the humanities in particular. This concern will certainly generate more effort to develop the non-research functions of the American University, but whether there will be any significant change in balance remains to be seen.

 

“And, finally, there has been a substantial increase in the involvement of Universities in public affairs. The increasing number of professors in Washington is one evidence. The increasing involvement in International problems is another which includes the involvement of both faculty and students. The University is no longer the Ivory Tower where learning is sought only for its own sake, but rather is squarely in the main stream of the practical affairs of the world.

 

“And to the local scene the University has also become a great asset. New industrial complexes have sprung up around our Universities. Industries have moved to the area of Universities, attracted by the new knowledge being generated by research. New businesses have been founded by young men educated in new fields of science and technology, In an era where industry is often based on ideas, rather than on transportation and the localities of markets, Universities become much more of a mainspring of economic growth than ever in the past.”

 

“But, as important as these structural patterns and utilitarian uses of a University may seem, these structural patterns and utilitarian uses must never be allowed to overshadow the fact that a University is primarily an institution where independent inquiry and independent teaching must prevail. The University will continue to be a vital institution in our society only so long as it remains a place where truth can be pursued, wherever it may lead. Utilitarian benefits can, at best, be only by-products.

 

“It is for this reason that the bulwark of any University which seeks excellence is Academic Freedom. If we are to preserve Academic Freedom we must accept the fact that our professors will sometimes teach something with which we don’t agree. They may take positions on subjects which will offend some of us. Their students, too, may make statements, write editorials in their papers, or do other things which will seem to be at odds  with the conventional wisdom of their elders. Nothing can be more damaging to the public-at-large, to take restrictive action on anything less than the most irresponsible abuse of Academic Freedom. And, they must be overly generous in their definition of irresponsibility.”

 

In closing, Packard says “I would encourage you to remember that the University is an immensely complex and an immensely important institution. Is faculty and its administrators face an almost impossible task as they strive to find the proper balance among the many things which are expected of them. In undertaking to meet the “New Goals and New Tasks” they have established for your University, they have accepted the challenge as they should. They need and they deserve your devoted and most understanding support. I salute your vision, and I wish you well.”

 

11/13/63, Letter to Packard from John A. Love, Governor of  Colorado, inviting Packard to speak at a dinner meeting the following March observing the 100th Anniversary of the University of Denver.

12/3/63, Copy of letter from Packard to Governor Love accepting the invitation to speak.

12/16/63, Letter to Packard from Gov. Love saying he would write later with more background and ideas.

2/26/64, Note from “lmn” at Stanford enclosing a copy of an article from the Denver Post discussing the protests from college and university administrators about Gov. Love’s budget for education.

3/4/64, Letter to Packard from Robert S. McCollum, Vice Chancellor, thanking Packard for participating in the dinner.

3/26/64, Letter to Packard from Chester M. Alter Chancellor, thanking Packard for his participation in the dinner.

3/30/64, Copy of letter from Packard to Chancellor Alter thinking him for his note and enclosing a copy of his address.

Undated, Clipping from Rocky Mountain News about Packard’s talk at Denver University.

January/February 1964, Publication from Colorado National Bank on research at Denver University.

Pamphlet of general information about Denver University.

 

Box 2, Folder 62 – General Speeches

 

June 1, 1964 – Self Enlightenment, The Key to Progress, Colorado College Commencement Address, Colorado Springs

 

Packard tells his audience that both of his parents graduated from Colorado College about the turn of the century, and he describes differences in living conditions between then and now – six decades later. Packard says the “America of sixty years ago was very primitive.

 

“The horse was the main means of private locomotion. There was no radio, no television. There were few telephones—about one for every one hundred people.  Considerable progress had been made medicine, but typhoid fever, diphtheria, pneumonia, tuberculosis, and other serious diseases would take their toll of the graduating class before its members reached their prime in life. Many of their children would not survive to college age. Just a few examples will serve to emphasize what vast changes have been effected by the advance of scientific knowledge.”

 

To draw the contrast with current living standards Packard says “Today you are able to fly to almost any city in the world in less time and much more comfort than your granPackardarents could travel to New York or San Francisco.

Radio and television bring important events to your living room, and the best entertainment and music, too…You can dial directly to nearly every telephone in the country, and there are nearly as many telephones in the nation now as there are people your age or older to use them. Progress in medicine has given your generation at least fifteen more years life expectancy than the generation of your granPackardarents.”

 

Having described these changes Packard goes on to say that “The quality of civilization is not measured, however, by science and its products alone, but rather by the vast range of social and political relationships between people and between groups of people. Science may be used to improve or degrade social and political relationships, or these may be improved or degraded quite apart from science and its products.  I believe there has been very substantial social and political progress, as well as scientific progress, during the period we are considering today, and I would like to review an example or two for you.”

 

In describing the quality of life at the beginning of the century Packard say “…life was not so bad ….Family life on the better farms throughout America was comfortable and satisfying, even though it did involve a good deal of hard work. Merchants and professional people had ample opportunity to enjoy a good life….

But life for the working man in the mines, and in most industries, was certainly unattractive. One dollar a day was a typical wage for vast numbers of people in America They and their families had no security against sickness or other misfortune. The prevailing attitude of business management was that labor was a commodity to be bought and sold on the open market, and at the lowest price that would produce the strong backs necessary for the job. These conditions had spawned the labor union movement and contributed to its growing strength.

 

“The first four decades of the twentieth century were filled with bitter strife and violence as the working man sought a wage on which he could raise his family and could maintain his dignity as a human being.”

 

Packard says that “In the thirties the federal government increased its participation in the labor problem, and progress was more rapid. Finally, a revolution in the attitude of management people has accelerated the progress so that the laboring man in this country eventually won his rightful place in our society. From $1 a day to $20 a day is about the measure of the average economic gain of this social revolution. To this has been added a large package of other benefits—compensation for accidents, sickness and unemployment insurance, retirement pay, and similar innovations which are now the accepted rights of the working man.

While these changes have come about largely through the pressure of the labor unions, and the intervention of the federal government, they have also been stimulated by a far—reaching revolution in management philosophy. I believe this philosophical revolution may in the end represent as important a chapter in social progress as the gains which have been achieved for the working people.”

 

Packard says that he believes “this revolution in labor and management attitudes is at least one example of social progress which is as important as some of the scientific progress which has been achieved since the time of your granPackardarents.

 

“This is also a good example of how social progress is achieved. We see three mechanisms which can hasten the evolutionary process. Under the first mechanism, the people who are aggrieved react to build up a countervailing force of power….I our example, the countervailing power was the union movement. The second mechanism is that a super authority can intervene, as the federal government has done in labor affairs. The third and best mechanism is that the people in a position to improve the situation can do so by a process of self-enlightening action This is the best mechanism because it is the method of reason rather than the method of emotion or tyranny. This mechanism is most likely to provide permanent progress, for it implies that what is done is considered right by all concerned.”

 

“We can already see these three mechanisms at work in the civil rights problem. The militant leadership of the minority groups is building up its countervailing power in an attempt to correct the aggrievement. The government, as a super authority, has intervened. Fortunately there is already considerable self-enlightenment of those who are in a position to improve the situation by their own actions. I am confident this third, and most important, mechanism will come into play more rapidly and more effectively in the civil rights problem than it did in the labor problem. If so, we can indeed credit these times with important social progress.

 

“It would be fortunate if those in the best position to do so were always able to bring about the correction of social injustice through their own enlightened action. Much strife would be avo8ded, and things would be easier for our governments. I do not think this is likely to happen—even with small problems. I am afraid force will continue to be an important corrective action in social problems for some time to come.”

 

Packard turns to international affairs saying that “During the first half of this century there was no evidence whatever of any progress in the relationships between nations, nor reduction in the brutality of dictatorship rule. Two of the most extensive and bloody wars the world has ever seen have occurred. The leadership of communism has murdered millions of people in cold blood, simply because these people cherished their freedom, or because they wanted to own the land that was their heritage. Fascist leaders murdered mullions of people simply because of their ancestors. And millions of people have continued to die of starvation. One cannot consider progress to have been made in any sense of the word. In fact, it would be hard to find a time of comparable length in the history of mankind when as may lives have been brutally and uselessly sacrificed. Reading the day-to-day headlines does not show much evidence that the situation is likely to improve.”

 

Self-enlightenment, or reason, seems to be even less likely among nations than among individuals. Warfare, then, has become the accepted means of attempting to solve nation differences. But the twentieth century has brought a change which could be the decisive element for real progress in international affairs. As many would caution, it could also be the element to end all civilization. I mean, of course, the nuclear weapon.”

 

Packard quotes Arnold Toynbee as saying that with the advent of nuclear power “the whole human race has been united on a military plane, the choice confronting us may be one between going all the way to unity, or going under.”

 

“Packard says that “I, for one, believe we should take the optimistic view, now that we have the chance, and should attempt to go all the way to unity—by that I mean to Universal Peace. I believe the threat of the nuclear weapon may turn out to be the super authority, which will final move nations into self-enlightened action—something which could never be done before.”

 

“Everyone agrees that this is the century of science, that scientific achievement has been accelerating at a tremendous pace and will continue to do so. This can also become the century of social and political progress. Some progress has already been made, but we have not yet determined the outcome. The outcome will be determined when we recognize that final and permanent change for the better in all human affairs comes not from strife between people, or groups of people,  attempting to force acceptance of their views; not from power imposed by a super authority, but only from self-enlightened action of all concerned whether they be individuals or nations. This is the challenge and the responsibility of the free society.”

 

 

 

6/1/64, Typewritten text of Packard’s speech at Commencement Ceremony for Colorado College.

6/1/64,  Typewritten draft of this address with handwritten notes by Packard.

6/1/64, Copy of the Calendar of Events for the Commencement

6/1/64, List of Senior Honors and Awards

11/14/64, Letter to Packard from Lloyd E. Worner, President Colorado College, asking Packard to be their Commencement speaker.

12/3/64, Copy of letter from Packard to Lloyd E. Worner saying he can be available for the Commencement.

1/3/64, Letter to Packard from Lloyd E. Worner thanking him for accepting the invitation.

3/10/64, Copy of letter to Lloyd E. Worner from Margaret Paull, Packard’s secretary, saying Packard will be available to meet with Worner on March 18^th.

3/27/64, Note to Packard from Lloyd E. Worner saying he enjoyed the visit to the HP plant.

3/26/64, Letter to Packard from Lorena A. Berger asking for Packard’s measurements for an academic costume.

4/20/64, Copy of a letter from Packard to Lloyd E. Worner giving arrival time in Colorado Springs.

4/30/64, Letter to Packard from Lloyd E. Worner giving schedules.

5/12/64, Letter to Packard from George A. Miller of Colorado College asking for a copy of Packard’s address for publicity purposes.

5/21/64, Letter from Margaret Paull to George A. Miller sending a copy of Packard’s forthcoming talk.

5/11/64, Letter to Packard from K. J. Curran, Dean of the College giving details on visit schedule.

6/5/64, Note to Packard from Ray Wilbur saying he and wife enjoyed Packard’s talk.

6/8/64, Note from Lloyd E. Worner to Packard thanking him for a pledge and for participating in the Commencement.

6/22/64, Handwritten letter to Packard from Karl K. Zimmermann, giving congratulations.

Undated letter to Packard from E. F. Turner of Sunnyvale asking for a copy of Packard’s talk, and sending a copy of a paper he had written.

Several newspaper clippings about the Commencement and Packard’s address.

2/28/67, Letter to Packard from Frances G. Robinson, Press and Publications Service, asking for permission to reprint Packard’s address on 6/1/64 at Colorado College.

 

Box 2, Folder 63 – General Speeches

 

September 16, 1964, Industry’s New Challenge, The Management of Creativity,

September 16, 1964 – Harvard Business School Club of Northern California, South San Francisco

September 22, 1964 – Aerojet General Management Club, Azusa

September 23, 1964 – WEMA, San Diego

Packard gave the same talk to these three organizations on the dates indicated. The title on his talk was also announced as “Observations on Management”

9/23/64, Typewritten text of Packard address to WEMA on this date.

 

Packard congratulates the members of the audience on efforts to make San Diego “one of the very important centers in the electronics field”, saying they “deserve a great deal of credit and recognition for this. He tells them that he would like to talk about some things of a general nature, but which he thinks are important.

 

Looking at the problems that face the electronics industry, Packard feels that “in spite of the political influences and other things that may affect our business, the final analysis of  how well our own firms do depends on how good a management job we do as individuals” adding that  “I am not very much inclined to pass the blame on to somebody else…. So I am going to discuss this matter of management and some of the things I think need emphasis.”

 

“Traditional concepts of management” Packard says, …were directed toward the job of managing men, materials, and money in order to determine where responsibilities should be assigned. However, over the past couple of decades Packard feels there has been a change…”Essentially it is that the management job has become a larger one than simply handling manpower, materials, and money. It has become one of…how to nurture creativity…how to manage our ideas…and how to develop people who have ideas. In other words, ideas are really a vitally important ingredient in our industry….The emphasis is on how to “manage creativity” rather than how to manage basic production which used to be so important a few years ago.”

 

Supporting this thought Packard looks at some employment statistics – “Since 1947, the industrial output has nearly doubled. During this period, the number of productive people—the so-called blue collar workers—has dropped slightly, from about 13 million to 12 million. At the same time, the number of scientists and engineers in the country has doubled. So you can see that it’s not only a situation in our own industry but in industry at large where there is more scientific manpower and more creativity. Meanwhile, the old concept of materials and labor efficiency has become less important.”

 

Packard sees the ever expanding government-supported market as leveling off and

Therefore “…we are all going to have to work harder at finding new products and new markets. The solution is here and not in getting better supports from Washington or in other ways.”

 

Packard describes how every product that they have introduced has gone through the same sales cycle – sales rising for a few years and then leveling off. He emphasizes that “…had we not, in fact, brought out new products year after year, our company would not have grown the way it has grown. Our growth has been typical of the entire electronics industry, to a greater or lesser degree, and we are faced now, I think, as an industry with the problem of how to continue new product generation. The industry is leveling off and if we are going to move ahead, we must find ways to develop new products with creativity and innovation which will fit new markets.”

 

Packard moves on to steps in implementing a product program. “Of course, the most important decision to be made in any new product program is “what are you going to develop?” If you start off developing the wrong thing, obviously, you are spinning your wheels. So we have tried to find ways of evaluating new product projects to determine whether the ones we undertake are the best of all possible projects or whether there are others which might be better. In order to do this we went back and looked at what had been the result of our average decisions and we found that, by applying a measure determined by adding up the dollars it cost us to develop a new product and relating that to the product the product produced over a five year period, we cold establish a ratio. In other words, if this product produces $5 of profit for every $1 spent on it, it was a pretty good thing. If it only produced $1 of profit, it was less attractive. So by analyzing what we had done in the past, we could teach our division engineers and people in smaller groups in the organization to make the right kind of decisions. “

 

After describing this technique Packard goes on to say that results turned out to be questionable because judgement entered in when forecasting development cost and profits; and by manipulating these figures they found that divisions were all able to forecast they would meet whatever goal management had set, be 20% growth per year or whatever.

 

“Well, I think I ought to say that some of the professional management techniques are really not very effective in this business of nurturing creativity and developing and trying to do a better job. It certainly is partly because judgment is necessary. Also, I think it’s because a good deal of the traditional management practice we are all used to has been brought about as a result of things that really have had very little relationship to the kinds of problems we are facing today. Now, management at large is based to a large degree on military tradition. You get the thing organized. You assign responsibility. You have everybody lined up in a chain-of-command, and this works just fine. That is , if you want to get a certain number of people doing something that is fairly routine….It has been a very authoritarian thing, and this basic concept of assignments of authority and responsibility and the division of labor have their place, of course. They make the job somewhat more efficient. But they don’’ seem to be the way to get at this question of how you are going to move ahead when ideas and creativity and new products are the most important ingredients for the future.

 

“One of the approaches which I think has a good deal of merit—and I think more people are coming to this view—is the general concept of management by objective. That is, instead of trying to have everything organized down to the last detail, you try and get everybody working toward the some objective in an area of freedom so they can use their judgment and imagination. This obviously places emphasis on ideas and ideas don’t generally come from groups of people or from organizational patterns—they come from individuals. The problem is how do you develop an environment in which individuals can be creative, and how do you identify and evaluate these ideas when they are brought to the front. I believe that you have to put a good deal of thought to your organizational structure in order to provide this environment.

 

“Another thing characteristic of people who are creative is that they tend to be dissatisfied—they tend to be unsettled. To put it another way, they just don’t fit into the conventional organizational structure.”

 

“We have been very fortunate in our particular business in that our products have gone to customers who in turn are knowledgeable about electronics. The electronic engineer is typically a customer for our products and we have a lot of electronic engineers in our own organization. So we have got a pretty good built-in market evaluation capability there. If we come up with a new product and a lot of our engineers think it is going to be a world beater, the chances are pretty good that all the engineers in our customers’ shops will think likewise.”

 

Packard tells of HP’s acquisition of the Sanborn Company…”trying to find ways to expand our product line into fields which are not closely related to the nation’s military program, hopefully to provide a broader base and greater stability….rather than expecting the government to bail us out, we are going to have to find solutions ourselves.

 

“In the case of our own company, we are divided into small divisions. We try and keep the company broken down into groups of five or six hundred. Our best performing divisions in general are those which are managed by people who are restless; who are innovators; who don’t fit the typical management pattern, who are not the most orderly and certainly who are not conformists. We have a time getting them to follow company policy. I can get mad at them until I look at their performance and realize we had better put up with this. Conversely, we have men who are pretty good in traditional management techniques. Now you would like to have both, and I think this shows up in the experience of many young companies which get started on a creative idea and then find that they do have to do a number of things in a straight-forward, orderly manner and that the traditional concepts of management are indeed important. So I don’t want to leave the impression that you can do things in an off-the-cuff manner…but I do think we need to work for a little balance.”

 

Packard moves on to talk about management’s involvement in activities outside the company; in the community. “In recent years, management people have become much more interested in participating in the society outside their own company, contributing to the community at large, and thinking deeply about social problems relating to their business., This has led them to an ever-greater awareness that people are important and need to be recognized as people…that an environment needs to be generated to provide the right kind of a climate for them as individuals rather than as mere additional manpower. I think that there is a good deal of maturity in the present-day approach to labor relations, both among union leaders and business leaders.“

 

“I am particularly struck as I think about this matter by an experience I had about fifteen years ago. I went to a conference at which we were talking about personnel problems and I posed the proposition that I thought we needed to think a little bit more about some of these human factors rather than merely how to make a profit for our stock holders. Just about every person in this conference jumped on me and they said anybody who thinks about anything except making the maximum profit for the stockholders has no place on a management team. It is quite interesting for me to recall that just about six months ago I attended a meeting in Chicago of the Committee for Economic Development at which some of the top business management people in the country were in attendance. We spent three days talking about how management and business could contribute to society at large, and not once during the entire meeting did anybody talk about this question of how important profits are. This isn’t to say that profits are not important, because, of course, you can’t run a business without them, but there have been distinct trends toward recognizing these broader responsibilities.

 

“We have done some things in our own company toward this end. We have tried to develop an enlightened personnel program…But we have also tried to encourage our people to take part in the community affairs.”

 

Packard then talks about the general business climate in California saying that “things are not always as attractive here as they are in other parts of the country. If there is going to be more competition for such military and space business as is available, it is going to be more important that we be competitive in the future than in the past. I think we have a much bigger job in getting the full support of our Congressmen. I think in final analysis our efficiency is going to be pretty important.

 

“Packard gives some statistics covering the last twenty years in California: population up 123%, state government expenditures up 1000%, taxes up 650%. “Now some of this expenditure, of course, was occasioned by a need to catch up with things that were left undone during the war, so you might say you should not go back to 1945. Supposing you go back to 1951. Since then the population has grown 85% and state expenditures are up 260%.” Packard tells of meeting with industrial people from the Bay Area, representing 40,000 employees, all of whom said “they were going to minimize their expansion in California and expand outside wherever they could. The interesting thing was that, although specific levels of taxation were important, everyone felt it was the attitude of the state government which was as significant as anything.

 

“Packard says they drew up a “comparison between a hypothetical unit operating in California and one operating in Colorado….We made some general definitions of a unit employing about 500 people, carrying about $1,700,000 in inventory, something like $1,000,000 in machinery and equipment, $2,000,000 in buildings and about $400,000 in sales subject to sales tax, and an annual sales volume in the neighborhood of $10,000,000.

 

“State unemployment taxes cost $46,000 more a year in California than in Colorado….Here in California, industry is called on to support both the people they employ and to support those they are unable to employ, so to speak. I Colorado, industry is asked to support the people they employ and the general taxpayer is asked to support the unemployed….Other taxes are higher in almost every respect. I won’t go through the details but it turns out that the savings in Colorado are somewhere in the neighborhood of $80,000 to $100,000, and while this is not a decisive figure, it can make a difference.”

 

“We talk about why there should be any incentive to move out of California. I think we have some pretty important things to face up to and must ask ourselves what we can do about them. The things WEMA is already doing are important. It is important that we do what we can to elect people to the state legislature or state government wherever possible who believe in fiscal responsibility because if we continue to spend money on everybody for everything, those of us who are in productive areas of industry are just going to have to pay the bill.”

 

Packard turns to military spending in the area which means “We are going to be under more pressure because virtually all of us depend to a large degree on military spending. Frankly, I don’t really think we are going to get very much benefit from political action in Washington. In fact, I think it’s going to be more difficult to keep our share of business here in California simply because there is less business to go around. Other states are working hard and there is more emphasis on low cost. These things are going to make it much more difficult here in the future to do as well as we have done in the past.

 

“On the other hand, we have, I think, one of the greatest assets of the entire country and that is in terms of our scientific and technologically trained people. As I see it, the success we each have in the future is not going to depend on how much pressure we can get in Washington or any charity from there, but rather on how well we are going to be able to manage our own affairs in taking full advantage of the talent we have and at the same time doing what we can to improve the economic climate here in the state. I think if we concentrate on these two things, we will have a pretty good chance of making the future a continuation of the very exciting times we have had in the past years.”

 

8/28/64, Letter to Packard, from  L. L. Thompson of Aerojet saying they had reviewed his qualifications, but had no opening at the time.

10/8/64, Letter to Packard from very embarrassed S. M. Stroud apologizing for the employment letter. Seems Packard’s bio relative the forthcoming dinner speech got into the wrong pile.

9/1/64, Memo from Mike Talbert of Neely Enterprises to Margaret Paull saying the place for the Aerojet Management Club meeting/dinner has been changed.

9/3/64, Letter to Packard from Stan Stroud of Aerojet thanking Packard for agreeing to speak to their group.

9/17/64, Letter to Packard from Frank H. Coyne, Jr. thanking him for speaking to the Harvard Club on September 16^th.

9/17/64, Letter to Packard from Peter Wallace thanking him for speaking to the Harvard Club.

9/23/64, Flyer, announcing Packard’s talk to WEMA on September 23.

9/25/64, Letter to Packard from H. M. Bailey, Thanking him for speaking to WEMA members.

October 1964, copy of The Westerner,  a WEMA publication.

 

 

 

Box 2, Folder 64 – General Speeches

 

October 16, 1964, The Electronic Industry, 1964, The Business Council, Hot Springs, Virginia

 

10/16/64, Typewritten copy of the text of this talk. Packard was a member of a panel and this is a straight-forward description of the industry; what they make, their growth rate, and future prospects.

 

Packard says that the compared to other major industries Electronics is a young industry – just four decades old. He defines it as “having to do with devices utilizing the flow of electrons in vacuum or in semi-conductors – but the boundaries of the electronic industry are not precise. It overlaps into nearly a score of the Department of Commerce Standard Industrial classifications. Many products of the electronic industry are incorporated into other products – both within the industry and also products of other industries. This makes it difficult to develop accurate statistics on the industry. But accepting these uncertainties electronics can be considered as a 17 billion dollar industry in 1964. This would make it about the seventh largest manufacturing industry in the United States, after Food, Transportation Equipment, Petroleum, Chemicals, primary and fabricated Metals, and Machinery.

 

“Nearly 900,000 people are employed, and it is important to note that about 135,000 of these are scientists and engineers. This means that innovation is perhaps the industry’s most important product. Many of the industry’s products are devices which were unknown twenty-five years ago. Some of them were thought then to have been impossible to develop or make, and of course, many had not even been thought of at all. The industry generates new business firms at a high rate, because a man with a new idea and only a few dollars is often all that is needed.

 

“The growth of the industry has been very rapid since 1950. The growth was accelerated by the Korean War, followed by a great push to strengthen our strategic military capability with missiles, a massive air defense system, and finally the space program. There has been a slow-down in the rate of growth since 1962. The figures are as follows:

 

Growth rate for industry, 1958-1962   –   13% per year

Growth rate for industry,  1962-1963  –     9% per year

Estimated growth rate for 1964           –     about 5%

 

Packard then discusses the three separate markets that make up the industry. “The largest market is to the Federal Government. In 1964 this market will account for about 9.9 billion dollars worth of products. This is nearly 60% of the industry’s total output, and this market will grow about 4% this year. It is composed as follows:

1964 Sales                   1963 Sales

Dept. of Defense                    $8.0 Billion                 $8.1 Billion

NASA                                     $1.7 Billion                 $1.2 Billion                             FAA                                        $160 Million               $160 Million

AEC                                        $40 Million                 $40 Million”

 

“The changes in this market have caused some problems for the industry during the past two years. The increase in spending from the space program has had a large portion of  Research and Development, with a small amount of hardware  production. The reduction in the Department of Defense spending has come from a shift from strategic to tactical weapons. This shift has resulted in a cancellation of some programs, and has been accompanied by changes in procurement policy. ?These changes have put pressure on profits for the industry in 1963, although there are sign of improvement this year.

 

“A sample of profits for a representative cross-section of the industry shows the following results:

 

Year                                         1962                1963                1964*

 

Profits as % of sales        $     4.8%                4.4%                4.6%

*results reported as of 10/4/64.”

 

Packard says that some firms have been hit hard by these changes. “California is an area where cutbacks have affected the economy. Because of the reduction of employment in electronics and other defense related industries, there has been no appreciable increase in industrial employment in the State for the past two years. This is against about a 7% annual increase in the total labor force.”

 

Going on to the second largest market Packard says this “is classified generally as an Industrial Market. It will account for about $4.5 billion of sales in 1964. This is something over 25% of the market, and will be about 12% ahead of last year. The industrial market breaks down to the following categories:

 

Estimated 1964 Sales              Growth Rate

 

Computers and related equipment      $1.8 Billion                             15%

 

Communication equipment                    1.2 Billion                            10 %

 

Test and Measuring equipment              600 Million                         10%

 

Industrial controls                                   400 Million                         15%

 

Medical equipment                                  200 Million                        no change

 

Miscellaneous                                           300 Million”                       —

 

“The third market, and the pioneer for the industry, is Consumer Electronics. In 1964 this market is expected to contribute about $2.6 Billion in sales, and will be about 6% ahead of last year. This market breaks down about as follows:

Estimated 1964 Sales              Growth Rate

 

TV Sets                                                           $1 Billion                                3%

(Of this Color TV

will produce a volume

of about $430 Million –

up from $250 Million a year

ago)

Phonographs                                                   $400 Million                           –

 

Radio Sets                                                       $400 Million                           –

AM and FM  $200 Million

Auto  Radios $200 Million                                                                         5%

 

Records and Tapes                                         $300 Million                          12%

 

Misc. Tape Recorders,                                     $500 Million                         10%

Electronic Organs, etc”.

 

“It is important to note the large growth in Color TV sets this year. This growth is expected to continue for the next year or two. Auto radios are up because of the good automobile market this year, but will directly follow the market. Tape recorders, electronic organs and miscellaneous consumer devices continue to grow in volume.

 

“The component market deserves special comment because it is large, $4.5 Billion estimated for 1964, but also because most of the components are consumed by the industry, about $600 Million only going outside as replacement parts, and thus adding to the industry total sales. This market breaks down as follows:

 

Estimated 1964 Sales              Growth Rate

 

Electronic Tubes                     $ 800 Million                          no change

 

Semi-Conductor Devices           600 Million                          6%

 

Connectors                                  300 Million                         10%

 

Capacitors                                   350 Million                         6%

 

Resistors                                     350 Million                         6%

 

“The balance of this market includes a wide range of devices used by the industry.

 

“Vacuum tubes continue to be the largest component market but the demand for these has leveled off. Transistors and other semi-conductor devices are growing rapidly in volume, but pressure on prices has been strong so that the dollar growth for this market is not as large as the growth in unit volume.

 

Packard talks a bit about Micro-miniature devices-…”devices utilizing a large number of active semi-conductor devices and passive elements in one package…..

These devices are expected to account for over $400 Million in sales in 1964, double the 1963 volume, and this market should grow rapidly in the future, replacing some of the demand for more conventional components.

 

“In general, the industry is going well after having faced some changes in the guying habits of its major customer over the past two years. Despite much talk about diversification into non-military fields, the military market will continue to be the largest for some time to come. This country still needs many better weapons and military devices than it now has….The most realistic estimates of this situation seem to indicate there is not likely to be much change either way in the level of Federal expenditures for the next year or two. Over the long range they are more likely to continue upward..

 

“In the industrial market the future of the industry will depend almost entirely on its ability to create new products. There is a broadening base of technology to build on, and an expanding market as well. In this area electronics is certain to continue to grow much faster than the economy as a whole.

 

“In the consumer field new innovations may contribute to growth in the market, but there are no obvious break-throughs on the horizon. This market will probably have about the same characteristics as the consumer market for other industries – as it has had in the past.

 

“In summary, although the industry has seen some changes during the past two years, it has weathered them well. Innovation has been the ingredient which has determined the course of the industry in the past – innovation will continue to do so to the future. The industry still looks to the future with the optimism of its youth.”

 

10/16/64, typewritten draft of the above speech with many handwritten cotes by Packard

 

10/16/64, Draft of above speech handwritten by Packard.

 

10/16/64, Several sheets of reference material used by Packard for the above speech.

 

10/22/64, Letter to Packard from F. R. Kappel, Chairman, Business Council, thanking him for his talk.

 

 

Box 2, Folder 65 – General Speeches

 

December 1, 1964, Management’s Expanding Responsibilities, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, New York City.

 

12/1/64, Typewritten copy of Packard’s talk to the ASME.

 

Packard says that “This meeting has special significance for me because I am an engineer by training, and have been actively working at management for over two decades….It is encouraging to note that the number of managers with engineering training is increasing rapidly….This is as it should be in our contemporary world which is so broadly based on technology.”

 

“In the beginning of its development as a specialized activity management was primarily concerned with increasing the operating efficiency of the enterprises with which it was involved….early practitioners were often called efficiency experts.

 

“As management has developed,…it has become clear that the profession has responsibilities beyond improving the operating efficiency of the enterprises being managed. I want to explore with you today some of these broader areas where management has the opportunity of making important contributions to the welfare of society.“

 

Packard says that “Many of the [management] concepts we use today had their origins in early governmental and military organizations. Beginning in the middle ages the Church has developed some very effective management techniques, and these have been influential in helping the Church to extend its influence over wide areas of the world.”

 

“…it has been in the environment of the expanding complex industrial economy that management has become a full grown profession. Much of the leadership for this development has come from America.”

 

“The growth of Management into an effective and important profession has been important factor in the economic progress of the twentieth century.

 

“As the management profession has grown and made these important contributions to our welfare, it has also achieved a position of great influence. Professional managers, not the investors nor the financial people, are now in direct control of a large majority of the business and industrial resources of this country. In these positions they have far more direct and important influence over the 71 million job holders of the country than do the Union  leaders. By their actions in their day-to-day management affairs, and because these actions affect many people, they hold substantial power of influence over society at large.”

 

“It is a position of tremendous influence and responsibility, and it should be recognized as such by every member of the management profession.

 

“Management has, in fact, been slow to recognize and accept this position of influence.

 

“Since the early years of scientific management, the major emphasis has been on the economic efficiency of the unit involved. Considerable attention has been given to human relations over the years, and much has been learned about this subject, but this has been done generally in an attempt to increase efficiency. The underlying philosophy has been that if the manager is able to produce goods and services which the market called for, and produce them at a profit, his responsibility to society has been discharged well. No one will deny that this is indeed the most important responsibility of a manager, for if he fails in this he is hardly in a position to do anything else. In the last few decades the management profession is beginning to realize that it does indeed have responsibilities beyond the achievement of economic efficiency. Fortunately, many management people have finally recognized that they do owe something to their employees beyond an hourly wage for work performed, and that they and their business firms are somehow involved in the environment created around their affairs by the society at large.

 

“The most evident understanding of management’s broader responsibility has come about in employee relations. The change in attitude was forced by the Unions and the Government, but there is ample evidence, I believe, that the management profession has become self-enlightened in the matter. Employees are by now well recognized as human beings, not just as a commodity to be bought on the open market. Good working conditions, safety, sickness benefits, provisions for retirement income, and many other considerations for employees, are now counted high on the list.”

 

“Managers have, in recent years taken an active interest in many affairs outside the confines of their business enterprises. Interest and activity in the local community has been increasing at a healthy rate….now nearly every community in America is better in some way because professional management has considered the local environment to be important.

 

“This interest has extended far beyond financial support for community projects. It has included active participation by business people in local governmental bodies, school boards, and other such groups. These participants are a benefit to the community because of their professional skills, and in such participation they have further extended their influence.

 

“In recent years professional management people have given a helping hand to American education. They divert millions of dollars annually  from the resources that control to schools, colleges, and universities throughout the country….Today professional managers are budgeting financial contributions to colleges and universities because thy believe that strong educational institutions are necessary for the welfare of the society in which their business firms operate.

 

“They expect to increase the flow of talented, educated young men and women to their companies. They hope their companies will benefit from the research programs at the universities. Underlying these specific expectations is the belief that strong, independent educational institutions are essential to the survival of a free society.

 

“These are just a few examples of how professional management in our free enterprise society is beginning to recognize that it has a great stake in the character of the society of which it is a part, that it can and should have a major role in determining what kind of society that will be.”

 

Packard points out that “Management as an important activity is not limited to a free enterprise or capitalist economy by any means. The manager is indispensible [sic] in a socialist or communist society as well….What, then makes management in a free society different? Management freedom allows the manager to make decisions and take objective actions based on his knowledge. He is not just a lieutenant executing orders. A business enterprise operating in the free market provides the best opportunity to develop and apply management judgement, and the best evaluation of performance, for in the end only performance counts. The profit system is the best motivation we have been able to devise. From this freedom comes a great diversity of enterprises, large and small, specialized and broad, and if any do not do their job well, another one will grow which will. Freedom generates diversity, and in diversity there is great strength.

 

“It is the very essence of a profession that its members have the freedom to apply their knowledge and their skills as they alone think best. Otherwise, they are not professionals, they are technicians. Freedom is essential to the survival of any profession, and management is no exception.”

 

“Although we can agree that American management has performed well, that freedom is essential for good management performance, we all know that this freedom is being gradually eroded. Government has constrained management action in many ways. Strong groups have grown up, particularly Unions, which have been successful in limiting management freedom, and are pushing further in this direction. Why has this come about in face of the fact that in providing goods and services for our society this profession has done a magnificent job in our free enterprise economy? I believe the answer is very simple and obvious. An institution, and institution, will survive only in a way in which it fulfills or helps to fulfill the total needs of society. The needs of society, any society, are not adequately met with more and better products at lower prices alone. If management is to survive as a profession in a free society, it must look further to its responsibilities. It must do more to insure that the economic units which it controls not only fulfill the material needs, more and better products at lower prices, but also that these units had better meet some of the other needs and aspirations of society. Whether it does so or not may determine whether we will even have a free society in the future.

 

“Fortunately, some progress has already been made. There is much more to do, and I can hope today only to give you a few suggestions.

 

“One of the most pressing problems in recent years that of unemployment in an otherwise healthy economy. With our expanding population the problem is certain to become more serious. While there is some disagreement about the figures, about the number of employable people who are unemployed, there are two groups which are very important.

 

“The first group is the young people. These young people who are unable to find jobs are important for our future, and there are too many of them. Unless our free enterprise economy finds ways to meet their needs and aspirations, they will pose a serious threat to its survival. There are already signs of unrest which could grow to serious proportions.

 

“The second group consists of those who have been displaced by the changing economy. Automation has generated unemployment for people with limited skills, even though it may have created more new jobs than it destroyed old.

 

Packard describes the pressures for government to solve these problems: “make work” projects, mandatory double pay for overtime, or shorter working hours. “If the management profession fails to accept a major responsibility for this problem, it is bound to result in further loss of management freedom.

 

“What, then, are proper areas for the profession to take action? One way is for managers to take a more active role in the education and retraining of these groups of unemployed people. We know there are many jobs available. How many of these unemployed youth and displaced workers would be already out of the ranks of the unemployed if only they had adequate education and training. Who should know better what this education and training should be, and how to accomplish it, than the people whose job it is to direct people in useful and productive activities. Here, then, is one challenge which the profession must accept with more dedication.

 

“The problem of Civil Rights is, in addition to other things, a special case of the unemployed. It is certainly preferable that equal employment opportunity be insured by enlightened management, rather than by governmental edict or social pressure. Some management freedom has already been lost by a lack of understanding and action. It is time all management people bring the strength of their knowledge and their position of influence to bear on these troubles.

 

“A commitment to, and an involvement in, the educational activities of our society is certainly a proper role for the management profession. This should involve continuing allocation of financial support from the economic resources of business concerns. It should involve participation of management people with those responsible for both government supported and privately supported educational activities, in whatever ways as may be effective.

 

“Management must be more concerned about the proper utilization of people in our society as a whole, as well as the proper utilization of people in their individual enterprises.”

 

“To the extent management influence and management action contribute to economic stability, management freedom in the future will be enhanced.”

 

Packard then looks to the future saying that “We cannot possibly meet the needs of the future without growth, and we need more economic growth than we have in the past. This poses a very serious challenge for management.”

 

Packard feels we no doubt will be able to fulfill the material needs without increasing the number of working people – maybe need even less. However, he sees a problem with “the millions of people in the rest of the world who do not have what they need. It seems unlikely that these needs can be met from the productive resources of America except to a limited extent, and then only as a catalyst to help other people produce what they need themselves “

 

“The horizons of management cannot be limited to the boundaries of the free Western World. If the industrialized countries do not have the responsibility to supply all of the material needs of the undeveloped world, they do have the responsibility of helping them supply their own needs.

 

“Financial and material help to undeveloped countries has not been very effective

This is because it takes more than money and materials to produce a viable economy. It takes management capability, as well. Here, then, is another proper and most important challenge for the management profession. Assistance to people in undeveloped areas of the world, to obtain the knowledge and skills of management, will probably contribute as much to their economic welfare as any other act of assistance which could be devised.

 

“Management has indeed grown into a great profession. Operating in the environment of the free enterprise economy it has brought forth the largest and most impressive array of goods and services the world has ever seen. The profession has already begun to direct its attention to may of the other needs and aspirations of society. It has revolutionized the life of the working man, reducing his drudgery, and increasing his leisure and security. Management people have contributed to the progress of the communities which they direct. Education is better because of the interest and involvement of professional management people. A good start has been made in providing a foundation for a management profession in the developing countries.

 

“We can all be pleased with and proud of the progress which has been made since the early days of the ‘efficiency expert’. These are the achievements of management in an environment of freedom. If we can preserve this environment of freedom, the opportunities for professional management are unlimited.”

 

 

6/65, Copy of printed text of Packard’s speech. From Mechanical Engineering publication.

3/4/64, Letter to Packard from Charles M. Merrick, Department of Industrial Engineering, Lafayette College, asking if Packard would be willing to speak to the ASME winter meeting in NYC.

3/18/64, Copy of letter from Packard to Charles M. Merrick saying he would be pleased to be asked to speak.

3/25/64, Letter to Packard from Charles M Merrick thinking Packard for his willingness to speak and saying the invitation will be forthcoming from the Meetings Committee.

3/27/64, Letter to Packard from James C. Skinner confirming Packard’s participation as speaker.

4/1/64, Letter to Charles M. Merrick from Margaret Paull sending biographical data.

4/3/64, Letter to Margaret Paull from Charles M. Merrick thanking her for biographical material on Packard.

4/10/64, Letter to Packard from Charles M. Merrick giving information on previous speakers.

4/13/64, Letter to Packard from T. S. Fetter, Jr. extending the formal invitation to speak to the ASME on December 1, 1964.

4/21/64, Copy of letter to T. S. Fetter, Jr. from Packard sending formal acceptance of the invitation to speak.

6/23/64, Letter to Packard from Charles M Merrick offering assistance on planning Packard’s talk.

7/2/64, Letter from Packard to Charles M. Merrick thanking him for his offer of assistance.

7/20/64, Letter to Packard from A. Bruce Conlin, Jr. asking for information on Packard’s talk for advance publicity purposes.

11/9/64, Letter to Packard from Marvin D. Frankel asking for an advance copy of Packard’s talk.

11/20/64, Copy of letter to Marvin D. Frankel from Margaret Paull sending a summary of Packard’s intended talk. The summary is attached.

11/18/64, Letter to Packard from Donald E. Farr asking for advance information of Packard’s talk.

11/20/64, Letter to Donald E. Farr from Margaret Paull sending requested data.

12/4/64, Letter to Packard from Russell M. H. Berg, Assistant Advertising Manager of Scientific American magazine requesting two copies of Packard’s talk.

12/8/64, Copy of letter to Russell M. H. Berg sending the requested copies.

12/8/64, Letter to Packard from N. A. Moerman  saying he has noted some shortcomings among managers.

12/9/64, Letter to Packard from David G. Barry requesting a copy of Packard’s talk.

12/11/64, Letter to Packard from Donald E. Farr of ASME thanking him for his presentation and expressing regret for such a small audience.

12/15/64, Letter to Packard from D. G. Currin requesting a copy of Packard’s talk.

12/18/64,  Letter to Packard from O. B. Schier, II ASME thanking him for his participation.

Box 1, Folder 23 – HP Management

 

January 10, 1964, Management Conference, Monterey

 

1/10/64, Typewritten address by Dave Packard.

Packard says we are “Here to look at our company from an overall point of view.

…we are one company and must have common objectives.”

 

“The ultimate goal of everyone here in this room tonight is to see that the entire company is successful, not just that your own area of responsibility is successful.”

 

Packard expresses disappointment with 1963 results.

“The most important problem we have is to develop a more effective working relationship between groups, to combine our strength so that clearly we can be stronger together.”

 

He asks managers to look at everything they have been doing and ask themselves two questions:

1. Will this maximize the performance of my division or area of responsibility?

2. Will this maximize the performance of the entire corporate family?

 

Packard says the two most important factors that define the performance of HP are:

1. Adequate profits

2. Satisfactory growth

 

He sees the challenge for 1964 as improving profit performance and the rate of growth. And “Because in the long run it will be easier to maintain good margins with new products and new markets, and because this is probably the only way we can insure growth for the future, we plan to spend most of our time here this weekend discussing this aspect of our affairs.”

 

He points to the excellent record of some of the organizations and concludes if everyone did as well “we would turn in a whale of a job.”

 

“I don’t see why we should settle for less,” he says.

 

Packard shows several slides reflecting performance. He says he will not propose detailed cost reductions, but “it should not be impossible to cut at least 1 million dollars off our costs before taxes.”

 

Packard feels increasing sales is more important in the long run and says most of the time at the conference will be spent on this problem. He gives examples of sales levels that were good and some that were not what they should be. “The job is to make all of our new product projects turn out as well as some of these have done…it will take hard work and good judgment, but it can be done!”

The folder contains an agenda and supporting papers.

Box 2, Folder 51 – General Speeches

 

April 19, 1963, Acceptance of  “The American Way of Life” award from the Sertoma Club, Pueblo, Colorado

 

4/19/63, Typewritten speech with handwritten notes by Packard.

 

Packard expresses appreciation for the honor of the award and to all the people who

came to the dinner and ceremony.

 

Looking back to his life in Pueblo 30 years prior Packard remembers several high school teachers, the various athletic teams, –  the hunting and fishing.

 

He remembers “something of the state of world affairs at that time. …the era of Calvin Coolidge and Herbert Hoover….the feeling that America was sell isolated…from the power diplomacy of Europe….The prevailing opinion of the late 1920s and the early 1930s, was that the Monroe Doctrine – combined with the vast expanses of the Atlantic and Pacific oceans were more than adequate to keep America from being seriously entangled in the affairs of Europe – of Asia, Africa, South America – and the rest of the world just didn’t seem to count for much.”

 

Packard  tells of the depression which he says was “out greatest nation concern…..GNP had dropped to 60 billion dollars. In that period, government expenditures — Federal, state and Local combined – were only about 10% of GHP [GNP?] and as I recall, the Federal expenditures alone were only 2% or 3%. This year…combined Government expenditures …are about equal to our total national production 30 years ago.

 

“The influence of Science was beginning to have its effect – an effect which was to be accelerated to a tremendous pace in the years that followed. I remember the first broadcast station in Pueblo…in about 1924. By 1930, broadcasting was well established throughout the country, but programs from Europe were not yet feasable [sic]. Television had been produced in the laboratory…the automobile was an important part of our economy…Air travel was just beginning.”

 

“All in all”, Packard says, “the future looked bright to me in those days – despite the depression. But, looking back, the things which have come about in these past three decades, have been more expensive than any of us could have imagined in our wildest dreams.

 

“The rise of Hitler — and World War II, galvanized the latent strength and capability of our country — and we found ourselves in a position of undisputed world leadership….new forces have come to bear to make the world of 1963 totally different from the world of 1931. We understand some of these forces — but we do not yet know how to cope with them. We do not know in what way they will affect the future of our country, nor, for that matter, how they will affect the future of each of us as individuals.”

 

Packard calls to mind some of the forces “which have changed the face of our world in these three decades — …the revolution in communication, the revolution in transportation and the revolution in our knowledge of and…our ability to master nature and our physical environment….Radio, television, teletype, the vast array of publications of all types, bring to a majority of the people everywhere in the world – information in considerable detail, about what is going on everywhere else. Horizons are opened up, new aspirations aregenerated….They can transmit bad ideas as well as good and from all this arises a new concern, among millions of people as to whether their lot in life is what it should be. We see signs of this everywhere — conflict – as more people learn that their lot in life can be improved as the underprivileged see and hear what can be done, these pressures will continue to increase and become more widespread. This revolution in communication we have seen may turn out to be a boon for mankind – it may, on the other hand, be a Pandora’s box – and one already opened. In any case, it is a fact and must be dealt with.

 

“The advancement of our skill in transportation is having a similar effect. In 1930, the dimensions of the world was measured in weeks — now it is measured in minutes.

 

“In medicine – we have conquered some of the most serious diseases of man and increased life expectancy to over 79 years. But, again, we find this has raised serious problems; a population explosion which is going to make it extremely difficult to convert whatever gross gains we make into gains for the individual.

 

“In the last three decades, we have increased the generation of electrical energy so as to have six times as much available for our factories and for our homes as we had in 1930. Here, fortunately we have much more electrical energy available for each individual as well.

 

“I am sure you will agree that what has happened has been considerable in magnitude and scope. And these achievements have also generated some PROBLEMS for us which are considerable in magnitude and scope.”

 

“The continuing education of the scientists to carry these things forward in the future is…a matter if high priority,” Packard says. “But, of even greater importance for the future is the development of leadership which can better understand and guide these great social and human problems which we are generating with our science. Perhaps we will somehow find solutions through divine guidance — perhaps we can somehow turn the clock back to what many think of as the GOOD OLD DAYS. It is my view that we can and will find solutions for these problems in the future. It will require more knowledge and more wisdom than we now have – and this can come only from better education – at all levels…..”

 

“Our economy in America has changed from one dependent primarily on raw materials to one highly dependent on educated people. The future of Colorado may be enhanced by further mineral discoveries, and water will, of course, play an important role. but far and away the more important is the quality and extent of the educational opportunities you are able to provide for your men and women – old as will as young. New industries will be attracted by the number and quality of your college and university graduates. And they will find ways to establish new ventures as well as strengthen old ones.

 

“While I have touched on some of the things that have happened since I left Pueblo, I want to add a comment on why, in my opinion, our country has been at the forefront of this amazing progress. If one examines the progress in every area, communication, transportation – in education – in the discovery and application of new knowledge in every field — it has in a decisive way been motivated by the drive of our private enterprise system. The growth of radio from the old crystal set to the satellite communication system is the story of individual people working in private enterprise. America has more electric power capacity than the next five nations of the world combined — not because of our public power projects — but because of  the initiative and capability of the individuals working our privately owned utilities. Private enterprise firms developed the airplane from the beginning to modern jet. Private enterprise has built the finest air transportation system in the world. The American farmer with his eye on his crops, using machinery developed by private enterprise, has made our agriculture the most efficient in the world.

 

“And, not least of all, it has been our great privately supported and, therefore, independent universities which have provided most of the leadership for all of higher education in America.

 

“This amazing progress in America has been built on the strength of individual people applying their talent, directing their energies and capabilities in an environment of freedom  to shape their lives as they see fit. Nowhere in history has any other social order been so effective in advancing the welfare of its people.”

 

“But, as each of you well know, this American way of life of ours has been challenged and is under attack. Khrushchev and his communists have threatened to “bury us.” Socialists in our government – and among our people – would place the importance of the state above the importance of the individual. They would direct our lives from Washington! They would take our wealth and distribute it as they see fit!

 

“Colorado was built by resourceful individuals working against many handicaps — individuals who wrested minerals from the rocks of the mountains — individuals who turned arid plains by irrigation into fertile gardens. This is a tradition which we must all work to preserve. And I believe it is being preserved here in Colorado more effectively than in many other parts of America. This fact had a large influence in the choice by the Hewlett-Packard Company to locate two major facilities here. One in Loveland where we have already found that the tradition of Colorado for the American Way still runs strong. And one in Colorado Springs where we are counting on the devotion of the people to the American Way to continue to run strong in the years ahead.

 

“The future prosperity of Colorado, indeed of the entire Western World, will not be generated at the State House in Denver nor in the White House in Washington, but, rather, by resourceful individuals throughout our society — applying their talent and their ability to the myriad of problems which always stand in the way of progress This is the tradition we honor here tonight.

 

“I am profoundly grateful for this opportunity to be here with you tonight to join in this honor of American Freedom. I assure you, such success as has come my way is in no small measure a direct result of the influence of the Pueblo – and of THE COLORADO OF THREE DECADES AGO.”

 

4/19/63, Printed program for the Sertoma International “The American Way of Life award. Awarded for Exemplary Leadership and Achievement under America’s

Freedoms.

1/9/63, Letter to Packard from Ralph C. Taylor, News Director, Star-Journal Publishing Corporation. Mr. Taylor explains that he was a long-time friend of Packard’s father and he would like to interview Packard for story about his life. He would also like to discuss the possibility of Packard’s coming to Colorado to receive the American Way of Life Award.

1/14/63, Copy of letter to Ralph C. Taylor from Packard saying he would be honored to receive the award. Suggests some time to get together to discuss the story.

1/17/63, Letter to Packard from Ralph C. Taylor, News Director Star-Journal Publishing Corporation. Says the Sertoma officers are in full accord on presenting the award on a date acceptable to Packard. Suggest meeting Packard in Palo Alto around Feb. 17 for story discussion.

3/6/63, Letter from Ralph Taylor to Packard saying they enjoyed visiting with Packard at his home, and suggesting April 19 or 20 for award dinner.

Letter to Packard from F. E. Colescott Sertoma Club President saying the dinner is now scheduled for April 20 and asking for confirmation. Handwritten notes on the letter say Colescott called to ask if April 19 would be OK and he was told it would be OK.

3/20/63, Copy of letter to Ralph Taylor from Packard saying he would send along the list of possible attendees in a day or so.

3/25/63, Copy of letter to Ralph Taylor from Margaret Paull (Packard’s secretary) sending the list of  invitees Packard is suggesting.

4/8/63, Letter from F. E. Colescott, Sertoma Club, to Packard talking about arrangements for the award dinner.

4/2/63, Letter to WRH from Gene Colescott, Sertoma Club President inviting WRH to the award dinner for Packard.

4/9/63, Copy of letter from WRH to Gene Colescott saying he would be out of town and cannot attend. 4/11/63, Letter to Packard from Gene Colescott enclosing a draft of the program schedule and advising that dress would be formal.

4/11/63, Inter-Office memo to Packard from Dave Kirby suggesting possible topics for his award dinner speech.

4/11/63, Letter to Packard from Charles L. Thomson , General Manager Pueblo Chamber of Commerce, suggesting the possibility of meeting with Packard during his visit to discuss how Pueblo might become more attractive to industry.

4/11/63, Page from Pueblo Star-Journal discussing Ralph Taylor’s retirement from the newspaper.

4/11/63, Page from the Pueblo Chieftain describing to Sertoma award to be given to Packard by Major James W. Wood.

4/11/63, Letter to Packard from Louis T. Benezet, The Colorado College, saying he will have to miss the luncheon on Saturday April 20th and asking if they could have breakfast on the 21st for a brief tour of the science building.

4/15/63, Copy of letter from Packard to Louis T. Benezet saying he would be glad to join him for  a visit to the campus of Sunday April 20th.

4/16/63, Copy of letter from Packard to Louis T. Benezet saying he now finds he must return to Palo Alto the evening of April 20 and so cannot make the tour on Sunday AM. Hopes to do it later.

4/20/63, Clipping from The Pueblo Chieftain describing the award dinner with picture of Maj. Wood making the presentation to Packard.

4/22/63, Letter from Gov. John A. Love to Packard congratulating him on receiving the Sertoma award and expressing the hope Packard will call him for any service he can give in the future.

4/25/63, Handwritten letter to Packard from high school teacher Mary Melcher congratulating him on the award and enclosing a clipping from a newspaper.

4/29/63, Copy of letter from Packard to Mary Melcher saying he was pleased to get her note and telling her he had mentioned her name at the award dinner.

5/2/63, Copy of letter to F. E. Colescott from Packard thanking all for the honor of the Sertoma award.

5/2/63, Copy of a letter to Ralph Taylor from Packard thanking him for the hospitality he had given Packard and wife Lu, during their visit for the award.

5/2/63, Copy of letter from Packard to “Red: LeMasters, LeMasters Janitorial Supplies, saying it was good to see him during his visit to Pueblo and thanking him for getting all the boys together while he was there. He confirms his invitation for Red to visit California and promises “ buck or two within range.”

 

 

 

Box 2, Folder 52 – General Speeches

 

April 21, 1963, Speech at Colorado Springs

Packard appears to be speaking to primarily a group of Colorado Springs citizens, telling them about HP’s plans to build a new permanent building and become a corporate citizen of their community.      It is an informal, chatty approach, rather than a prepared text.

 

4/21/63, Copy of a typewritten transcription of Packard’s remarks

 

Packard starts by telling his audience why they decided to build facilities in Colorado in the first place. He makes it clear that their decision had nothing to do with the fact that he was born and raised in Pueblo – and is, as he says “very fond of Colorado….I want to assure you,” he says, “that the selection of Colorado Springs was not made for any sentimental reason but only after a very careful analysis by some pretty smart people in our organization as to where a good location might be for the future development of an important activity of our company….We do indeed try and make an objective analysis of many factors that are important to the success of the business, but …it is not only the impersonal things, in many ways it is the attitude and the personal environment that may be decisive as to whether the choice of location is right or not.

 

Packard stresses that the decision to establish a new plant location is a very important one – to the company, to the community, and to the people who will be asked to pull up stakes and move. “…if for any reason our choice of location has been wrong, this is a disastrous thing both of the company and for the community, and I want you to realize that we recognize this fact and that we have put a good deal of consideration into this matter.”

 

To test the waters Packard tells how they started out in a modest way, renting a small facility so :…”if it did not work out as well as we anticipated it would, we could move back from this decision and do so without any serious damage either to the future of our company nor to the community of which we made a choice.

 

“But I am delighted to be here today to tell you the experience we have had since the decision was made a year and a half ago to come to [here] that the choice has been fully verified by the expansion we have had in the little over a year that our people have been in your community.”

 

“So we are here today to tell you folks that after having given this matter of whether we should or should not be located in Colorado Springs very careful consideration, we have decided that this is indeed a very desirable place for us to commit a substantial portion of our future success of our company and we are here to announce that we are going to go ahead with our plans to carry on and make Colorado Springs a permanent location for one of the important activities of the Hewlett-Packard Company.”

 

Packard talks about the site chosen for the plant. “…I think everyone in the organization who has seen the site feel that this…is a wonderful location and …we hope to develop what you will come to think upon as the finest plant in your community.”

 

“The building,” Packard says, “is going to be designed in a two-level construction to hopefully fit into the contours of the area—it will be designed in the context of the surroundings and it is going to be devoted to both manufacturing engineering and development….

 

“The building has been designed in accordance with a long range plan because we have found from experience that it is desirable to think ahead again on these matters, although I want to assure you that our ability to think ahead with any position is not as good as it should be. But, at least we like to do some planning in terms of what might happen in relation to the ultimate development of the site and we have done that, and this particular building will fit into a master plan which would allow expansion to some 400,000 square feet – whether this will come about or not only time will tell, but we are of the mind that it is important when you make a major move like this to be sure that it is made in context with what you might hopefully have to do later.

 

“This first year will cost approximately $2,000,000 and so it is going to be an important investment for our company and we can not commit this amount of money to a facility unless we have a great deal of confidence that it is going to be productive and it is going to be permanent.”

 

“Now I think this gets into one of the very important aspects of our business….in our business we’re not dependent on the things which were traditionally important in industry—raw materials, transportation, labor costs, and all of these things. These factors have to be reasonably favorable, but they are by no means decisive. The decisive element in our business is people and unless we are able to locate a facility where we can attract the kind of people who are going to be able to keep   ahead of everything that is going on in the country, we have no hope of keeping up in this business and making this particular venture successful. And that one of the decisive reasons that we considered Colorado Springs as a location for an important activity of our company had to do with the question of people.

 

“[The people] in this plant are going to have decide what the trends of this business require and they are going to have to find ways to invent and develop and put into manufacture devices that are going to be better than somebody else’s. To the extent that [they] are able to do that this plant is going to be a great success. To the extent to which they fail, the plant is going to be a failure. It is just as simple as that. So we have to consider the question of whether a particular location is one to which we can attract some of our most capable people, whether they are going to be satisfied with the community environment, whether the educational opportunities are to be such that they will be able to keep up with the rapidly advancing trends in the technical phases of this business.”

 

Packard describes the severe competition among companies for new graduates – “graduates who ask ‘Where am I gong to be? Am I going to have a place to carry on my intellectual development, educational activities for myself, and am I going to have the opportunity to bring up my youngsters in the kind of environment I would like to see for them? And so, in this aspect Colorado Springs is a very important choice and this had a good influence in our decision here.

 

“Now this gets into the question of education and education is important. We looked at Colorado pretty carefully in this aspect and I think I want to be frank with you. I would say that the educational system in Colorado is good but it has a long way to go to be as good as it should be, so we think there is some concern about the matter here. We think it is our duty to build strength in the educational foundation which you have and we hope that this can be done because this is going to be decisive, not only for our particular business here in Colorado Springs, but it is going to be decisive in terms of the entire state to attract the kind of industries which I think are going to be important in the future and I think the kind of industries which will be attractive to your community and to your state.

 

“You have made a good deal of progress here at Colorado college. You have made a good deal of progress at Colorado University, but it might interest you to know that some of the bright young boys who are working in Palo Alto whom we would like to ask to come out to Colorado Springs would like to get some more education and they are asking ‘Can I go on and work toward my Masters degree when I come out here?’ The answer is ‘We hope so, but we are not sure.’ This is a question that I think we are going to get together with all of you people and see if we an develop opportunities to do some of these things and I assure you they are going to be important to you, perhaps even more important to you and the community than they are to us and to the industries that are moving in.”

 

“The attitude of the community,” Packard says, “is an important element in a decision of this nature. I think we want to try to move into a community where the government of the community people doesn’t expect industry to support everybody in their jobs plus the government and everything else to boot. On the other hand I assure you that when we come into a community of this characteristics we hope that we can carry our weight and do our part of the job and we will ask for no more than a fair shake in these matters.

 

“Now one thing about this I wanted to comment [on] and I wanted to comment from experience. I think there is a happy medium in how far you can go in attracting industry into a community and at the same time keep the community environment  where it should be and I think it is important not to go overboard in this matter because if all the emphasis is put on the importance to industry to attract a great many people, you generate a tremendous number of corollary problems, so I would hope here in Colorado Springs that you don’t come to the conclusion that having industry is the end and aim of the community in any sense of the word. We would hope that this matter can be kept in context and we think that this is important for those of you in the industry as well as those of you in the community who are anxious to continue to see Colorado Springs one of the attractive residential communities in the country. And so in this matter there are many aspects which need to be considered on both sides of the coin and I assure you that we intend and hope to be able to cooperate and help in this matter.

 

“So this decision as I think you an see has been made in terms of some fairly careful considerations of the factors that are important to us and I think it has been made in terms of the considerations that are important to your community to keep it one of the attractive communities of the country. We are delighted that we are able to go ahead with this program and I assure you that we are going to do everything we can to prove to you and to prove to ourselves that this was the right decision for the long run.

 

“Thanks very much.”

 

 

 

Box 2, Folder 53 – General Speeches

 

May 7, 1963, National Conference on Peaceful Uses of Space, The University/Industry Partnership in space Programs, Chicago

 

5/7/63, Printed pages from undetermined publication giving full quotations from panel member presentations at the above conference. Below is a summary of Packard’s presentation along with some exerpts from his participation in the panel discussion that followed after each member gave their individual presentations.

 

Packard opens his comments by reviewing “a little of the history of the university-industry relationship in the specific area around Stanford University. “. He says that the part of this relationship which he wishes to discuss “was not influenced in any way by the Space Age…but it should be remembered that the industry and the activity which have developed from this particular relationship with Stanford have, in fact, had a great influence on the space accomplishments to date.”

 

Packard says that “When Hewlett-Packard first established its firm in the Palo Alto area, there were about five electronics firms around the San Francisco peninsula.” And having “somewhere between 200 and 300 “ employees. Packard says that at time “we looked to Chicago as the center of the electronics industry…” Packard  gives “A few statistics on the situation today, some 20 to 23 years later…. At the present time in the bay area there are well over 100 electronics firms, including the large effort of Lockheed in their Polaris program, employing approximately 30,000 people.” Aside from Lockheed Packard says “there are approximately 70 firms employing approximately 12,000 people, and the annual volume of production of electronic devices almost three quarters of a billion dollars annually.”

 

Packard says that the population of the city of Palo Alto increased from 25,000 to 52,000 over the preceding 10 years; and that the assessed valuation of the community increased from $42 million to $170 million during the same period. “This is one of the direct and important results for the community. There has been a threefold increase in retail sales as compared with a 2 to 1 increase in population.”

 

“Thus”, Packard continues, “the electronics industry [in this area] has had a very important and beneficial effect on the community as well as made an important contribution to the whole area of technology. The interesting thing about this development is that a majority of these firms were started by young people coming out of the university. In many cases they were started with very little capital and well over half of all the firms in this area are new ventures that were started as private enterprises by young people with some knowledge, with some help from the university relationship, and with a desire to get into the private enterprise segment of our economy.”

 

Packard draws  “Several conclusions …from this university-industry relationship that has developed over the last 2 decades or so the Stanford area. In the first place, almost all the new businesses in this area are based upon new products which were generated in the laboratories at Stanford University.” He gives some examples from HP’s experience: a counter “developed by a young man doing his graduate work at Stanford University on a fellowship which we sponsored,…many devices in the microwave field …were first conceived in the Physics Department at Stanford…More recently some of the work in what we call backward-wave oscillator tubes and traveling-wave amplifier tubes was the foundation of some additional instrument which have added to the product line and the capability of our organization.”

 

Packard tells how the Varian brothers, having invented the Klystron tube in the physics lab at Stanford a little before 1940, founded Varian Associates shortly after World War II and  built “one of the most important industries in the country in the field of microwave tubes.”

 

Packard tells how, in fields other than electronics, physics, and electrical engineering, activities at Stanford have contributed to the development of industry.

“For instance, a program at Stanford Research Institute involves investigation of explosives. Dr. Poulter, in the laboratory that was established in his name, did some important research in the use of shape charges and various kinds of explosive devices, and a program was developed which is the basis of the United Technology Corporation program of solid fuel propellants.”

 

“Packard points out that “While these programs have contributed to “big” science, they have also made a very important contribution to the free enterprise segment of our economy; this is an especially important characteristic of the development around Stanford University.

 

“In addition to specific products, the university has contributed a very important resource of trained manpower–engineers, and scientists and business leaders–and trained manpower has, in many ways, been developed around some areas of specific technology not unrelated to these particular product areas already mentioned–microwave tubes and solid-state electronics, for example. The University has attracted a very strong group of faculty and from this has come the Fairchild semiconductor program; William Shockley was attracted back to the area from Bell Laboratories and he, too, has established a commercial venture in the electronics field.

 

“Underlying all this there has developed over the years an important relationship between the university and industry. A number of times during these 2 decades, university administrators have come to us in industry and pointed out that they had a faculty appointment open, but did not have the resources to attract the person they wanted; they have asked if we would be interested in providing either a consulting job or in some other way supporting this appointment financially. Our firm has provided this support in a number of cases and it has enabled Stanford to attract some important people.”

 

Packard gives another example of Stanford/industry cooperation, this time in the field of aeronautical engineering. Lockheed wanted a particular man who was interested in the university association – which worked out well. So well that the enrollment in Stanford’s aeronautical engineering program grew from two graduate students before the program was worked out to more than 100  graduate students 2 years later.

 

“This consulting service is effective, not just in terms of having a conference now and then to talk about a program, but in bringing a university professor into a close association on a continuing basis with a particular program that is of mutual interest; this has been done in the field of microwave tubes and in many areas by a number of firms….

 

“Particularly effective has been a university-industry program in which industry hires graduates from various colleges and universities around the country and, in an arrangement with Stanford, allows these baccalaureate-degree holders to obtain advances degrees by spending about half time working and half time going to school. This was worked out by Dr. Terman, who was then Dean of the School of Engineering.”

 

“In summary, it might be reemphasized that this astounding growth in the technologically based industries in the San Francisco Bay area has been due in large part to the contributions from Stanford University….There is no question that one of the important responsibilities of universities is to generate new knowledge; it seems, as well, that one of the responsibilities of universities and industry is to find ways in which this new knowledge can be converted into useful purposes as efficiently and as effectively as possible. The programs in the bay area, particularly those around Stanford University, have been especially effective in this way.”

 

This ended Packard’s prepared comments. After the other panelists finished their talks there followed a round table discussion among. One commented on the greatly increased level of government support since World War II, Packard replied that “The situation at Stanford has been very much the same way. The amount of government support for research has gone up at a tremendous rate. Stanford has never had a very large amount of industry-supported research, in any case. Stanford Research Institute was set up to handle this problem, and they are involved in the more specific jobs for industry. The university has followed a policy of not taking on any specific job for a specific firm; only with rare exceptions does Stanford do this. the university tries to limit its research program to areas that are of interest to a particular professor and can be continued over a period of time. The figures of Stanford Research Institute are very interesting because an attempt has been made to keep a large proportion of research for private concerns there. The trustees would like to have not more than half of the entire Research Institute program supported by government funds, but it keeps increasing every year until it is almost 80 percent this year.”

 

5/7/63,  Five pages of handwritten notes by Packard containing various facts and figures that he had gathered for the above presentation.

2/1/63, Typed fact sheet on Stanford Industrial Park giving the names of companies who lease land including number of acres, number of employees etc.

3/24/63, Program for “The Second Northern California Junior Science and Humanities Symposium” apparently reference material for Packard.

4/63,  Copy of printed article by Professor Frederick E. Terman on the subject of Federal grants.

3/19/63, Letter to Packard from Lyle H. Lanier Executive Vice President and Provost, University of Illinois, asking if Packard would be willing to participate in the May 7 conference and panel discussion on the topic of “The Role of Universities in Space Research”

3/22/63, Copy of letter from Margaret Paull (Packard’s secretary) to Lyle Lanier replying to his letter of 3/19/63 and saying that Packard is away until the second week of April.

4/18/63, Copy of a letter to Lyle Lanier from Packard saying that he would be “most pleased to participate in the panel discussion …on May 7th”

4/17/63, Letter to Packard from William L. Everitt, Dean, College of Engineering University of Illinois, saying they were delighted that Packard would participate in the panel, and giving more details of the program.

4/19/63, Letter to Packard from Hale Nelson, General Chairman, expressing appreciation for Packard’s willingness to serve on the panel, and giving details on the program.

4/23/63, Copy of letter to Hale Nelson from Packard saying he would meet at noon luncheon on May 7.

4/29/63, Letter to Packard from Hale Nelson giving more program arrangements.

5/2/63, Telegram to Packard from Sidney Jones of the conference staff asking that Packard discuss “Broad concepts of university – university relationships”  and not limit discussion to research parks.

 

5/6/63, ID badge sent to Packard for conference.

5/6/63, Printed copy of conference program.

5/14/63, Letter to Packard from Hale Nelson and Sidney Jones thanking him for participating in the conference.

5/16/63,  Letter to Packard from Bill Everitt thanking him for participating in the conference and also suggest HP consider the Champaign-Urbana area for a future facility.

Undated, Bound booklet titled Interstate Research Park.

 

 

Box 2, Folder 54 – General Speeches

 

June 6, 1963, Address before New York Society of Security Analysts, NYC

 

6/6/63, Typewritten copy of above speech.

 

Not having talked to this group for over four years Packard says he wants to bring them up to date on the many changes that have taken place at HP in the interim. But first, he gives some statistics on operations for the first six months of FY 63. A few of these were:

Total income $55,690,000, compared to $54,530,000 for year ago period.

Earnings were $3,522,000 compared to $3,446,000 year ago.

EPS 29.7 cents vs. 29.5 year ago.

 

Packard mentions that during the first half of 1963 they have been integrating the sales groups into the HP organization.

Long term debt $437,000 vs. $339,000 year ago.

Overall Packard says “I think we can feel reasonably satisfied about the balance sheet position of the company, and we have no financial problems of consequence.”

 

Turning to organizational changes over the past four years Packard describes the HP organization in 1959 as “…a highly centralized organization in which the management was on a functional basis with a vice president for Manufacturing, one for Marketing, one for R & D, and one for Finance, and there were very few activities outside Palo Alto.” He recalls that at their previous meeting he had said that  “our policy was to specialize in the field of electronic instrumentation, to develop products which would make a contribution to the field, and to develop products which were general-purpose in their nature, thereby having a broad market rather than being designed for specific, individual applications, I also stated our policy was to finance our growth from earnings.”

 

“Since that time we have moved from a highly centralized organization into one which is largely divisionalized — and geographically disbursed.” He describes some of the specific changes:

 

“We have in Palo Alto several divisions. The Frequency & Time Division has a very important area of product responsibility having to do with frequency standards, frequency counters and other devices used in the measurement of time and frequency, as the name indicates.

 

“The Microwave Division, which is one of our very strong areas of involvement, makes microwave signal generators and all sorts of measurement devices concerned with radar communication equipment, microwave links, etc.

 

“The Oscilloscope Division is still headquarted in Palo Alto, but it is scheduled to be moved to Colorado Springs with the next two years.

 

“The Dymec Division in Palo Alto handles the job of developing and selling instrument systems — that is, combinations of instruments which go together to do a complete job for the customer.

 

“Palo Alto Engineering Company was set up to manufacture magnetic devices such as transformers. It is being phased out, and its work will be integrated into other divisions.

 

“We have established a new and important activity called HP Associates. This group was set up to concentrate on the development of advanced solid sate electronics. Over the years we have done a good deal of solid state work in our own laboratories — the intent to provide better components and better technology with which to manufacture instrumentation. This new group is set up to broaden the area of solid state R & D and is already beginning to develop some outside sales. The only opportunity for us in this field of semiconductors is if we happen to be able to make some important contributions. There’s a very good chance that we might be able to do this, but HP Associates is still oriented primarily to give us some lead in technology for use in our own shop.

 

“Outside of Palo Alto we have a division in Loveland, Colorado, manufacturing what we call the audio-video class of instruments.

 

“We have acquired the F. L. Moseley Company in Pasadena, California; the Boonton Radio Corporation in New Jersey; the Harrison Laboratories in New Jersey; and the Sanborn Company in Waltham, Massachusetts. In addition to that, we have rather extensive activities overseas with a sales organization in Geneva, a manufacturing plant just out of Stuttgart, another manufacturing operation outside of London, and a joint venture planned for Japan. The acquisition of our sales organizations has brought in a number of additional discrete corporate entities and has encouraged us to set up some of our own. So from all of this you can see we have moved from a highly centralized company into one that is involved in the management of a widely dispersed group of activities.”

 

Packard says that these changes  “have brought about a good many management problems, but I am very much encouraged by the fact that we have been able to accomplish the transition without serious difficulty.”  And he adds that “We have been able to meet this new management challenge with people from within our own organization.”

 

Packard assures the group that “Despite the major change in the structure of our organization, our policies have not changed in any essential way. We are still in the business of general-purpose electronic instrumentation. We are trying to do those things where we think we can make an important contribution to the field, and are not taking on new projects just to get into a bigger area of activity. Our policy is to continue to finance our growth from earnings, and we have been able to do so. Government business is important to us, but we make no products that are designed specifically for military or other government applications.”

 

Packard explains that “One of the very important things about our company is that our growth has come almost entirely from new products….and the overall sales growth that we have been able to achieve is the result of the superimposition of new products on [the] steady level [of the more mature products].”

 

Packard then goes projects several charts: [Which are also included with the typed text]

Chart No. 1 – “Shows our consolidated shipments for the past five             years….we shall probably wind up in the range of $120 million for fiscal ‘63    total income”

 

Chart  No. 2 – Presents a breakdown of HP markets in different categories, military, non-military, government subcontracts, commercial.

 

Char No. 3 – Shows the relative proportion of  HP’s business subject to renegotiation adjustment.

 

Chart No. 4 – indicates international market activity.

 

Chart No. 5 – “Presents an analysis of our European business. It points out a very interesting situation. The lower bar represents the products of U. S. origin, the products that are manufactured in the United States and sold in Europe. We started manufacturing in Europe about the beginning of 1960, and the bar on the top represents sales in Europe from our European factories. As you can see, the portion represented by our European manufacturing operations is growing rapidly. But despite this growth, we have been able throughout this period to consistently increase the export of our products from the United States. I think this pattern is going to continue for some time.”

 

Chart No. 6 – Pacific area markets. “This market is not significant because of its size, or of its past importance, but because an analysis of the area indicates why we have decided to make a major move in Japan. You will see from this chart that our Japanese business was moving ahead in a rather satisfactory way up until 1961. At that time, restrictions on imports into Japan reduced our business there. As a result of studying this situation, we have decided to set up a joint venture with a firm in Japan. The agreements are completed To do this with the Yokogawa Electric Words, one of the most respected firms in the instrument field in Japan.”

 

Chart No. 7 – “is the most significant of all in evaluating the real nature of our company and the nature of its growth potential. This chart shows the additions, year by year, which our new products have made to our annual sales volume….This chart also indicates that if we had not maintained a steady output of new instruments, our present volume would be only slightly larger than it was in 1955. Furthermore, if our new product effort were to stop completely, the general trend in our business would be either level or slightly up and down from year to year, and certainly after any reasonable period, would go downward. This pattern is one that we study carefully, We try to analyze our new product effort to see that we continue to do the things which will continue to generate substantial new product growth. As a result of studying this pattern over the past few years, we decided a couple of years ago to increase our total R & D expenditure, and the last chart will show you how this has gone.”

 

Chart No. 8 – As a general overview Packard says that “In total we have spent something like $23 million of company generated funds [over the past four years] as compared to about a quarter of a million of government sponsored effort. Our business is one which is highly dependent upon our new product effort, and we are supporting this effort almost entirely with our own funds.”

 

Packard gives some specific examples from the current new product program. “We have just introduced what we call a Frequency Synthesizer. I mentioned this in our first quarter report. This device has now been finished, and we are beginning to get some orders. We don’t have it in full production yet, and I don’t think it is going to have any significant effect on this year’s volume, but it will have a significant effect on next year’s business. This is one of the largest and most expensive new product developments we have ever undertaken. We have spent over a million dollars of direct R & D on this project, but it is significant that we already have negotiations in progress for many millions of dollars worth of business.”

Packard mentions the medical instrumentation as an area “which is growing very rapidly and which has a great deal of potential.”

 

Packard talks of HP Associates and says that “One of the very important areas they are working on is related to the field of optics. As perhaps you know, there are methods of generating electromagnetic radiation in the range of light — infra red, visible by some of the new solid state techniques. We are already using some of these techniques in our instrumentation, and this work should open up important new fields of measurement.”

 

“Of Dymec [working in the area of measurement systems] Packard says “I am happy to say that as a result of what they have already done, their orders this year are at a new high and moving up rapidly.”

 

Regarding facilities Packard says “We are expanding the facilities for HP Associates for reasons that I think should be obvious. Harrison Laboratories, an acquisition last year in the field of power supplies, has completely outgrown its facilities, and we have a plant under construction for them in Berkeley Heights, New Jersey. We are going to let contracts within the next month or so for a $2 million facility in Colorado Springs to move our Oscilloscope Division, and set it up on a completely integrated basis there. Our manufacturing program in Germany has come along so well that we have authorized plans to triple our facility there within a year or so.”

 

“In Japan, the agreements between Yokogawa and ourselves are completed, and are awaiting approval by the Japanese government. We hope the approval may be obtained within a month or two, but we don’t have any experience with the Japanese, so it may not be as soon as we think. In any case, this joint venture organization will manufacture our products for the Japanese market. We will have the responsibility for international sales of their products. This program may have some supplementary benefits in providing low cost manufacture of certain items in case that should be necessary to meet world-wide competition.”

 

“In summary, our business has changed in its character as it has expanded. We are now operating a world-wide corporation compared to one that was centralized in Palo Alto some four or five years ago. Our policies have continued to be much along the same we have followed for years. We believe there is still a big job to be done in the field of electronic instrumentation. As we look to the future, we come to the conclusion that there is ample opportunity ahead, and there is really no limitation except our own ability to get this job done.”

 

 

8/28/62, Letter to Packard from John S. Wilson, Investment Analyst, asking if Packard would be willing to address a meeting of the New York Society of Security Analysts.

10/8/62,  Copy of letter to John S. Wilson from Packard saying he would be willing to address the security analysts and giving a couple of dates.

10/23/62, Letter to Packard from John S. Wilson confirming the June 6, 1963 date and enclosing a n outline of meeting procedures.

5/28/63, Copy of letter from Margaret Paull (Packard’s secretary) to John S. Wilson giving him information he requested.

5/29/63, Letter to Packard from John S. Wilson, giving details on meeting times.

5/29/63, Copy of letter from Margaret Paull to John S. Wilson, giving information on slide projector needed.

6/3/63, Inter-office memo from Austin Marx to Packard giving financial data.

Group of letters and cards asking for copies of Packard’s presentation

Two newspaper clippings commenting on Packard’s talk.

 

 

 

Box 2, Folder 55 – General Speeches

 

September 16, 1963,  Speech at Yokogawa Ceremony, Tokyo, Japan

 

This speech hs been moved to box 1, folder 22A

 

 

Box 2, Folder 56 – General Speeches

 

September 19, 1963, Making Maximum Utilization of Corporate Resources, International Management Congress, NYC

 

9/19/63, Typewritten copy of  the above address by Packard.

Packard sets the scene describing  “the impact of science and the advancement of knowledge” – nuclear energy, travel at thousands of miles per hour, computations in minutes that previously took years. Social changes too. “They stem from greatly expanded communication, the radio, television, the press – they are nurtured by a rapid increase in literacy and understanding. These social changes are the inevitable result of, and at the same time catalog, a rising level of education of all people,”

 

“We see on every side a ferment of dissatisfaction with things the way they are….We see it most strikingly in the underdeveloped countries, but we find it here too in the United States among our minority and underprivileged groups of people.

 

…“The frontiers are advancing very rapidly and many people are being educated right up to these frontiers. He, then, is a resource growing in magnitude and in value and it must not be overlooked….the rising aspirations of people in the underdeveloped countries are generating tremendous markets for the essentials – food, housing, clothing and transportation. And these expanding markets which are part and parcel of today’s social flux are by no means unimportant to those of us in management.”

 

Packard refers to the “great scientific developments of the past few decades” and says that “management  now has “unlimited energy for our factories…, automation to control our machines,…communications facilities to transmit any amount of information we require,… and sophisticated instruments and procedures to collect our data…and computers to process it for us. “But,” he says, “the all important question remains – how do we effectively utilize these resources we have at our command?”

 

Packard says that with all these resources at our command we might be tempted to try and automate the entire process. “But this fantasy is soon dismissed when one remembers that machines cannot yet think or innovate, and probably never will.” And he concludes, therefore, “that the ability to think, to innovate, is now vastly more important than it ever was, simply because these vast impersonal resources must be effectively utilized.”

 

“Now the traditional resources which the corporate manager had to utilize were money, raw materials, energy and human labor — the latter largely as a source of energy, Much of the theory of management was about how to utilize these traditional resources efficiently.”

 

Packard says that while methods were developed to help managers utilize such resources as money and raw materials, “the beginnings of scientific management came from how to utilize human labor more effectively. Many of the things we still talk about in management are how to get a bit more work out of our people. Time and motion studies were designed to show the worker how he could use his physical capability more effectively. Piece work recognized the proposition that if you gave the worker an incentive, he might be able to figure out how to do his job better than you as a manager could tell him or show him. this was an important recognition of the fact that an employee might contribute something more than physical labor if you gave him a chance.

 

“The trend of management thinking, particularly over the past decade or two, has been directed more and more toward the management of the human resources of an organization. The fact that we have a rapidly expanding impersonal scientific base for our affairs places more importance on people rather than less. And fortunately we have the kind of people we need in increasing number to do this job well.

 

“I would propose then that the efficient utilization of people, as our most important corporate resource, is the sum and substance of management today. The value of people is primarily in their ability to think, to innovate, to bring imagination rather than their physical energy to their jobs. There are many ways in which people can be encouraged to apply their intelligence to their jobs and this can and should be done in every area of a business” – and he discusses two of these: – “the utilization of the resource generally described as “know-how” in a day-to-day manufacturing operation, and the capability of an organization to develop new products considered as an important corporate resource. Both depend on the effective utilization of people rather than money or physical assets.”

 

Looking at all of the books and specialized technical papers that are written on many subjects, Packard says “one might think that all the “know-how” necessary for efficient corporate operation would be available for the asking. But our experience tells us there is a decisive difference between reading how to do something and being able to do it. Experience — the ability to make the idea actually work — is the priceless ingredient the expert person brings to the job. The more complicated the problem, the more necessary the expert person becomes.”

 

Packard says he sees many examples of innovation as he walks around HP, “But at the same time I have never seen an organization which would not benefit from more special know-how. There are always innumerable problems to be solved. There are always jobs which should be done better.

 

“What, then, is the method of developing and utilizing this important resource? Unique and valuable know-how comes from people who are able to innovate. Such people can be identified by trial and error — perhaps in other ways too, although I do not know of any. They operate best in an environment of freedom. They are professionals in the true sense , not managers or organization men. Management has not always recognized the importance of this ability to innovate, and when present, it is often stifled by restraints and controls. With the growing complexity, particularly of a technologically oriented business, people who have the ability and opportunity to innovate are a great resource which must be effectively utilized.

 

Saying that people who are the most effective innovators “are not usually good executives or administrators”, Packard suggests “One way they can be utilized is as specialists in a given functional area. Give this type of person a special problem area to work on and then let him have the freedom to do it his way….His motivation and satisfaction come largely from his being able to see his know-how put to practical use.”

 

Packard sees three steps by which this innovative resource can be utilized: “The first step is to recognize that people can contribute by innovation. They must be given some general guidance which should restrict them as little as possible.

 

…“The second step is to give the people who can do this kind of work some operating freedom. You have to tell them or give them guidance as to what you want done. Then you have to let them do it their way.

 

“The third step is to make sure the people who make contributions by innovation in your organization receive credit for what they do. They are much more likely to do a good job the next time if they receive some recognition for the last one.”

 

Packard says “We have in our company a number of such specialists. They provide a great deal of invaluable know-how in all areas of the company….We consider one of our most important management challenges that of expanding their influence and developing their opportunities to innovate.”

 

“A second and most important resource of our company has been our capability to develop and market new products. This capability also comes, of course, from individuals who are able to innovate. But there must also be guidance and direction if this effort is to be efficient. Innovation in the field of day-to-day know-how is well directed because there is a specific job to be done, or a problem to be solved, and the expert is readily directed to the problem There is almost no limit to the variety of new products which might be developed. With limited resources in money and people, the all important question is which project is most significant? What is the priority among all possible projects.?

 

Packard says “Studies have indicated that of all the new product projects initiated by industry, only a very small percentage is ultimately successful. Thus…there appears to be considerable room for improvement in the results which can be achieved with the present level of effort.”

 

Saying he believes that the growth and profitable of HP is a result of their new product program, he presents a picture of  HP’s program for developing new products. “Our sales in 1962 were $109,000,000, over half of which came from new products developed since 1957. On a corporate -wide basis for every dollar spent on new product development, five dollars in profits before taxes have been generated, and in addition, the dollar spent on research and development has been recovered.”

 

Packard says, “Without question the most important step in a new product program is the initial selection of the project to be undertaken. …it is necessary that the resources available be applied to the products most likely to be successful”, and “…toward this end certain guiding policies have been adopted, and a specific procedure has been followed.”

 

Packard describes HP’s new product guidelines as requiring the project selected “must be in the field of electronic instrumentation, and must, if possible, bring some new contribution to the field — not be just a copy of something someone else has already done. But in addition to these general objectives, we need to provide specific guidance for the project.

 

“First, the marketing and the technical people, working together, prepare a tentative specification  for the proposed product. Usually the proposed product is discussed with potential customers for their reaction. the marketing people then prepare a five-year forecast of sales volume. From this an estimate of five years’ profit is made. The research and development people prepare a time schedule for the development and estimate the cost — including production engineering and tooling. The ration between estimated five-year profit and estimated development cost then becomes a figure of merit for that project. With a figure of merit thus calculated for each proposed project, we have a fair method of comparing projects and selecting the most attractive for development. The detailed specifications of the proposed project and the figure of merit calculations provide a very specific objective for the project. These provide guidance toward what the product will be, what it will cost, what will be the volume, and what will be the resulting profit. These specific objectives are kept before the development team throughout the course of development.”

 

Packard emphasizes that “…every new product project is a total company responsibility. Marketing people, manufacturing people, financial people, as well as the development engineers, are continually involved from the beginning and work together. This procedure provides not only a useful method of evaluation and decision making at the beginning but also continual communication between interested people during the entire development process. It  provides strong motivation for the innovation.

 

“The people who are responsible for innovation — the development people — are in continual contact with the manufacturing and marketing people. The project engineer thus receives company-wide recognition of his  product is successful. He is encouraged to help introduce his new product in the field as well. He thereby receives much more satisfaction and motivation from accomplishment than if he were involved only in the laboratory technical development.

 

“These two illustrations of contributions by people working as individuals, or as part of a team, are only examples of the many ways in which human resources can be effectively utilized. The requirements for effective encouragement of individual resourcefulness are actually very simple, The first is to provide for a common objective. This objective may be a level of profit performance, it may be a target for cost reduction, or it may be a new product with a carefully defined and extensive set of objectives.”

 

“In simple form then, one very useful approach to the better utilization of human resources in management is: Provide a well-defined objective, give the person as much freedom as possible in working toward that objective, and finally, provide motivation by seeing that the contribution of the individual is recognized throughout the organization. This is an attitude that can be applied in many ways, but when applied will help assure the maximum utilization of the most important corporate resource of all — the individual capability of all of our people.”

 

9/19/63, Printed copy of above address

9/18/63, HP News release on above address.

10/21/63, Letter to Packard from Harold A. Wolff, McKinsey & Company, Inc., asking for a copy of this address.

Undated, Brochure describing the Council for International Progress in Management.

7/1/64, Letter from Philip Garey , Vice President of the CIPM, asking for a French translation of Packard’s address.

7/31/64, Copy of a letter from Margaret Paul , (Packard’s secretary) to Philip Garey send the French translation.

8/3/64,  Letter to Packard from Philip Garey, thanking him for the French translation.

 

 

Box 2, Folder 57 – General Speeches

 

November 4, 1963, A Businessman’s View of the New Technological Revolution, Proceedings of the University/Industry Liaison Conference

 

11/4/63, Typewritten copy of Packard’s address to the conference.

Packard says “We are here today to discuss ways in which we can help the economy of Colorado grow and help improve its social climate. This so-called new technological revolution is going to have an important influence in this matter. But I would like to take a few minutes to look at the broader aspects of economic growth, because I think it’s a mistake to expect new technology to be the only factor which will contribute to the things we are trying to achieve.”

 

He names some of the other factors which “are going to have a bearing on how well we will be able to take advantage of such technological advancement as is made…growth of population…changing pattern of spending…sources of capital…the nature of our economic system.”

 

Looking at each of these, starting with population growth, he recalls that when he was in college it was thought that the population of the United States would level off. “Things have turned out differently as they often do….this population growth will affect our economic growth in several specific ways….there will be more economic units, more people to buy things. There will be new families and there will be expanded markets for old and new products as a result.”

 

“The changing spending patterns of our people are going to continue to be an important factor in economic growth. …the majority of our people are now able to earn above a subsistence level….A larger number of people now have money to spend in discretionary ways….There will be money to spend on education,…They will have time to travel, and they will have money to travel.

 

So it is in the total environment of these various factors that we should consider our economic growth and the effect of this so-called new technological revolution.”

 

Packard points out that the technological revolution is actually not new. “It is really just a continuation of the old industrial revolution that began in the eighteenth century in England with the application of steam power to the work of men. It has the same characteristics which it has had since the beginning, but for some reason we don’t always seem to appreciate that these characteristics are present,. One of the important characteristics is that new technology destroys established jobs, established industries and established interests while it is creating new ones. In doing so, it creates economic stress and social stress often of considerable magnitude.”

 

“I am confident [the technological revolution] is going to create growth in such a way as to continue to generate social and economic problems. These problems must be solved, in my view, by private business, private institutions as well as by government action.”

 

Packard gives the example of the technological revolution’s effect on agriculture saying that “Prior to World Wear II a relatively large proportion of our total research and development effort was directed in fields related to agriculture, and a substantial amount of effort is continuing. From chemistry we have been able to develop new and better fertilizers, insecticides and chemicals for weed control. From our knowledge of biology we are able to develop new breeds of animals, new strains of plants, obtain better productivity from these. Engineering provided new labor saving devices which were applied throughout agriculture. And other technology added for us new methods of food preservation, transportation and processing.”

 

“But, as we all know, this technology has generated by virtue of its very success some serious social problems. Today we have less than half as many farmers and farm workers as we had in 1920. These farm workers have gone to the city to seek jobs in industry. This migration is continuing and it is going to continue for some time in the future.”

 

“This provides an example of the kinds of problems that are generated by new technology. When we look at technology as a simple means to advance our economy, we would do well to give serious attention to some of the problems which are likely to result”

 

“There are examples in industry as well, as you all know. In railroads the diesel engine replaced the steam engine in something like ten years. This and other developments reduced the number of jobs in the railroad industry from 1,300,000 in 1948 to less than 830,000 in 1958….Aluminum has reduced the demand for steel and plastics has reduced the demand for both….It is a changing pattern. It is important for business people to become aware of the fact that it is a continually changing pattern which results from technological progress and that there are social and economic by-products which must be dealt with.

 

Packard asks what, then, is new about the new technological revolution. “In the first place, it is getting bigger all the time. It is the nature of growth that each new increment tends to increase in proportion to the level of activity already in existence. Growth tends to be at a constant percentage rate….We are in fact spending a great deal more money on technology, on  research and development than we were a few years ago….We were spending something like four billion dollars in 1953 and the spending rate has gone up to 15 billion dollars per year in a space of ten years. This is an annual increase of about 15% per year.

 

“This can be compared with the growth of our gross national product which has come to be the most convenient, if not necessarily the best measure, of the health and growth of our economy. The growth of our gross national product has been at the rate of between three and four per cent per year. There is some evidence that an increased research and development effort will generate increased growth for a company or an industry. It may do so for an entire economy. We are not sure but many people believe that because we are in fact spending proportionally much more on research and development we will accelerate the growth of our economy as a direct result.

 

There are, however, some reasons why this is not likely to be so. In the first place, there are other factors which affect economic growth. economists have placed more emphasis on other influencing factors. For example, there are many economists who hold to the theory that if you can simply increase the purchasing power of the people, you thereby are able to increase the growth of your economy. This has been attempted, not always with the predicted results. Then there is another school of economists which holds to the theory that id you simply invest more dollars in your productive establishment, this will necessarily generate more growth for the future….There is some correlation but whether cause or result has not been established,. Then there are those who hold that the increase in the research and development effort is a prime factor. I think the truth probably is in between, but it is very easy to over-simplify this matter.

 

Now I want to say a word or two about why I think this present high level of research and development is not very well directed to bolster the growth of our economy and why the results may not be quite as good as we might hope. In the first place, we have today too much money being spent on sophisticated military problems and space applications. These things are very important in themselves and very glamorous. The story is given us that the “fall-out” from this work is going to generate a lot of future economic growth, but I think if this is examined in detail, the question is doubtful at least.”

 

“But despite these problems research and development is going to be a very major factor in our growth in these coming years….Certainly Nuclear energy is going to be a major source of generation of electrical power within a decade or two. …There is one very significant field that is bound to become more important in the future because of past and present technological effort. This is the field of computers and data processing. Computers have become a billion dollar industry in this country in only about a decade, and we seem to be only at the beginning of their potential. And related to this is communications, how do we get this information from where it is generated to where it can be utilized or processed in some way.

 

“We have seen the extension of direct dialing in our telephone system in the last few years and now it seems almost commonplace to pick up the hone and dial a couple of numbers and have someone answer from across the country as though he were next door.”

 

“Biochemistry is an area of very important research and development which holds as much promise as any field for important advances in the future….technology will be a tremendous stimulus to growth in the future as it has been in the past….The population growth, improving income levels, the availability of capital and the motivation and drives which come from the free enterprise system are also going to be equally important. In considering economic growth we should pay attention to all of these factors.

 

Packard continues looking at past trends and says that “I think that we come to the conclusion that our society…has changed from an economy which is dependent upon raw materials, power, and transportation and money to an economy that is much more dependent upon human intelligence and human wisdom. And it is going to require the highest level of human intelligence to develop and understand and apply this new technology. And it is going to take the highest level of wisdom to be sure that we apply it for the benefit of our society as a whole.

 

Packard poses the question “What then do all these trends mean to the State of Colorado?”  He goes on to describe some conclusions that can be drawn: “Some of your old and established industries will continue to have difficult going in the future. Minerals will continue to be under pressure, and even steel is going to be replaced in more places in the future by aluminum and plastics. There will be further adjustment in agriculture. But I think in balance the present problems of agriculture will eventually be solved, and agriculture will be a very strong segment of our economy, not only in the nation as a whole but I think here in Colorado too.

 

“The tourist trade should improve as technology improves transportation, and as people everywhere have more money to spend and more time to spend it….supersonic transport of Mach II speed for our airlines might by of more relative value to Colorado than to Illinois, New York or Massachusetts.

 

“But most important of all”, he says, “your state is now in a position to attract many important industries which it could not attract before. What will this require? In the first place, it will require some of the elements that industry has always required. It requires good transportation to other centers of industry and to other markets. Air transportation for people and other light-weight products is most important. Bit it is also important that your trucking and railroad industry be nurtured and encouraged because these will be important factors in your future economic development. It requires desirable living environment so that you can attract to your state the capable scientific people and their families. The people who can contribute to this growth.

 

“It requires, also, attention to the development of a climate which is favorable to the free enterprise system, because it is the initiative and drive from this system which can perhaps provide as much for your growth as any other single factor.

 

“Most important of all the opportunities for you to participate in these things in the future require that you develop the best educational system that you can possibly afford. Your future will be improved as you are able to encourage your universities to develop in substantial ways to the advancement of new knowledge. Help them generate the environment which will provide the cooperation between business and industry so that business and industry can take advantage of the things that your university people do. In turn your universities will be supported substantially by business and industry.

 

…”It’s important that your educational system be excellent because you must attract capable scholars from other parts of the country. It is just not possible for you to educate your own professors and faculty at a rate which is adequate for the job. You’re in competition with the most important and the greatest universities in the country, and the success in strengthening your universities will, in part, depend on how well you can meet this competition. It is important for you also to raise the level of all your educational institutions, your schools and colleges. Not only because this new technology and the environment in which it will operate will require more education and more training on all levels of employment, but also because it’s going to involve a [more] rapid change in the future than it has in the past. Life-long learning is going to be very important.

 

“This is a Herculean task. It will take money. But it will also take understanding and cooperation of business and industry and the community at large. You have here in your state several good universities. They should become great universities. To do this they will need more money. But they also must be kept independent and protected from the cross-fire of politics, of selfish local interests, including selfish local interests of business. Your universities are the pillars of excellence on which the quality of your entire educational system depends and they will by a very large degree determine how well Colorado fares in this competition with the rest of the country for the benefits of this new technological revolution.

 

“I think it can be safely said that your universities are worth more to your state than all of the gold you have ever mined. Treat them accordingly.

 

…”Ladies and gentlemen I think this conference is ample evidence that many of you here in the state are aware of this opportunity which is offered. I am pleased that it is recognized as a joint responsibility. A joint responsibility of people in business, of people in universities, and of people in the government. And I am very pleased too, that our company has been in a position to participate in this opportunity here in Colorado. We are very delighted from the specific progress of our program here, and I have every confidence that our trust in the future of Colorado is going to be well justified.

 

“And finally, I am greatly honored to have the privilege of talking with you here today. Thank you.”

 

5/1/63, Letter to Packard from William H. Miernyk, Conference Director, inviting him to speak at the conference.

6/26/63, Copy of letter to William H. Miernyk from Packard accepting his invitation to speak at the above conference.

7/1/63, Letter to Packard from William H. Miernyk, expressing  pleasure that Packard will be able to attend the conference and discussing a title for Packard’s speech.

7/9/63, Copy of letter from Packard to William H. Miernyk agreeing to title for speech.

7/10/63, Letter to Packard from Janet R. Ryan asking for a biographical sketch for the conference program.

11/6/63, Letter to Packard from Dan McMahon, Chairman of the Governor’s Advisory Committee to the State Division of Commerce and Development expressing gratification that both Packard and Dr. Terman will be billing to provide guidance to their committee.

11/27/63, Letter to Packard from William H. Miernyk enclosing manuscript to Packard’s address for editing..

1/9/64, Copy of letter from Packard to William H. Miernyk returning the edited manuscript.

1/14/64, Letter to Packard from William H. Miernyk, acknowledging receipt of the manuscript.

 

11/4&5/63, Bound paperback book titled Colorado and the New Technological Revolution, Proceedings of The University-Industry Liaison Conference, 1963. This booklet contains a copy of Packard’s speech which is briefed above.

 

11/4/63, Two typewritten pages of speech introducing Packard for the above speech. Introduction speaker is unnamed.

 

11/4/63, Typewritten list of conference participants.

 

 

 

Box 2, Folder 58 – General Speeches

 

November 8,1963 – Taxation Panel, California Industrial Development Conference, San Francisco

 

11/8/63, Handwritten outline notes by Packard for his address at this conference, titled Taxation and the Future of California.

 

1. We are here because we are interested in discussing California’s economy and what might be done to improve it in the future.

 

2. State taxes are not ordinarily a dominant factor in considering industrial location.

 

A. Markets, labor costs, transportation, raw materials – and for technologically based industries – excellence of universities and education in general may be dominant factors. This latter factor has been dominant factor in the Bay Area.

 

B. Taxes can be significant factor in some cases.

1. Where an industry must be competitive and other factors are equal.(Not             often much chance.)

2. Taxes and State Fiscal policy are indicators of political climate and political climate is always a dominant factor influencing industrial location.

C. Any consideration of taxes in respect to industrial location must be more concerned with trends than with current levels.

1. A decision to locate in a particular area influences the business for a long time in the future.

Let’s look at trends – last 10 years.

Population – up 46%

Personal Income – up 96%

Combined State and Local Taxes up – 160%

Property Taxes – up 189%

Spending – up 10%

                                                                                      General Fund Revenue – up 7.6%

 

If we look at trends we need a fix on where we are – it wouldn’t be so bad if we were catching up.

 

School costs per pupil among highest in nation.

Cost of Living among the highest.

Skilled labor among highest

We don’t need to catch up with anyone.

 

Must look at trends in State.

Economy – To see if we can afford this.

 

1. Large part of growth in California economy over past 10 years based on Federal Government support. Largely because of the growth in early 1950s   – 4% per year growth in employment.

“Changing emphasis military and space – slower operating rate, fewer new jobs – more unemployment. Defense and space based industry has grown rapidly in past decade – is now slowing down. It is not in the slightest influenced by State tax – or local political environment. Its costs are passed on the Federal government. This situation is bound to change:

“We have the problem here in California – How do we change the environment from on attractive to pie in the sky philosophy to one attractive to those industries who must compete in rough and tumble competition with the world.

 

“Tend to appoint non employer representatives on Unemployment Compensation – State Disability  and Workmen’s Compensation Boards. These programs are supported by do-gooders in state government [and] are scaring away industry.

 

“We are generating unemployment in the State of California by our tax policy and by the political philosophy behind it. The trends indicate we are on a collision course which will be very serious. It is manifestly absorb that a state with the potential of California could have such a poorly administered tax and fiscal policy as we have had in the past years.”

11/8/63, Three pages of Packard handwritten notes with reference data for speech.

11/8/63, Copy of typewritten conference program.

8/2/63, Letter to Packard from Stanley E. McCaffrey, President, The San Francisco Bay Area Council, Inc. inviting Packard to participate in this conference.

8/23/63, Letter from Stanley E. McCaffrey to Packard asking that he attend a meeting on 8/27 to discuss outline of conference. Handwritten note on letter says “Didn’t attend”

9/26/63, Letter to Packard from Neil Jacoby, Dean Graduate School of Business Administration, University of California, Los Angeles, and Chairman of the Taxation Panel for the conference giving Packard some logistical data for the conference discussion.

9/30/63, Copy of letter from Packard to Dean Neil H. Jacoby in reply to his letter of  9/26 saying the plan looked OK.

10/1/63, Letter to Packard from Clark Galloway, California State Chamber of Commerce sending Packard several reports and tabulations on taxes all in response to Packard’s request relayed by his secretary.

10/7/63, Letter to Packard from Stanley E. McCaffrey, President, The San Francisco Bay Area Council sending announcements of conference for Packard to distribute to Hprs.

10/13/63, Letter from Carl F. Stover of SRI sending an outline of a talk by a fellow speaker at the forthcoming conference, Dr. Weldon B. Gibson, asking for any comments Packard may have on the draft.

In addition, this folder contains many booklets and tabulations on taxes gathered by Packard as reference material for his address.

 

 

Box 2, Folder 59 – General Speeches

 

November 12, 1963, Luncheon Talk, Peninsula Manufacturing Association, San Mateo

11/12/63, Handwritten notes by Packard for this speech [No typed text]

 

General subjects of interest:

National scene

State

Local

 

National – General business situation

Business good – Will be good through 1964 election

Tax cut bill

 

a. Determine whether business encouraged through private enterprise or through  more deficit spending.

 

b. Tax bill very important.

 

1. Could give boost to business which could carry us to a new plateau –                              1965 and beyond.

 

2. Features of bill.

[None written]

 

3. Present Status

Write to your Senators and Representatives to urge passage.

State Scene

Population growth – 3.9%/year

Employment growth – 2.5%/year, last three years.

Unemployment at 6%

 

Defense – Space employment high

Likely to drop off

1. National reduction

2. Other states

 

Economic environment for business not good in California.

Taxes higher – labor costs higher.

Trends – 10 years

Population up 46%

Personal income up 96%

Combined state and local taxes up 160%

Property taxes up 189%

 

State spending +10% per year

General fund income 7.6% per year

 

Highest indebtedness generated by taxes

2.3 Billion

1.5 Billion for New York

 

Taxes spent

Education –  40%

Highways – 12%

Welfare – 8.5%

 

This year tax problem – 100 million gap in General Fund. Governor             proposed to close gap with advance of State Tax Payments. Nothing to reduce spending to keep within means. Clearly action is needed – support.

 

California economic climate is less attractive to business than most other                            states. No business would [invest?] money in California except for:

1. Markets

2. Raw materials

3. Transportation

4. Advantage of university associations

 

Unless something constructive is done about state government spending

1. Unemployment will increase

 

Civil Rights Problem

1. It has been a problem for a long time and getting worse so eventually                                                      something had to happen

2. There is no quick solution – it will take years – better education is best                                                    hope.

 

3. It is important enough that everyone should take it seriously and                                                                        everyone who can should do something.

 

4. What can business and industry do?

 

A. Avoid discrimination in jobs stretch the point where measurable.

 

B. Give attention to training and upgrading.

 

C. Encourage some of your people to participate in community programs.

 

D. The most serious problem is education – integration per se will not necessarily result in better education for young people. They must be encouraged to appreciate education as the way for them to get ahead.

 

A good project for Peninsula Manufacturers Association would be to sponsor programs to help young people take advantage of education opportunities and to appreciate what it can mean to them.

 

A. Part time jobs with guidance

 

B. Scholarships and awards for achievement.

 

C. Plant tours and programs for student groups.

 

D. Sponsorship of young people activities.

We have a problem in Civil Rights here on the Peninsula – it can                                          easily be solved if all groups put their shoulder to the wheel. Solutions by local groups with right leadership is much preferable to:

 

1. Radical action groups

2. State intervention

3. Federal laws

Community Environment

1. Peninsula is a residential community

 

11/12/63, Three handwritten pages by Packard with supporting data for the above talk.

2/14/63, Letter to Packard from Jon B. Riffel, president of the Peninsula Manufacturers Association, inviting Packard to speak to their group.

3/19/63, Copy of a letter from Packard to John B. Riffel saying he would be pleased to address the group later in the year.

3/20/63, Letter to Packard from Jon Riffel expressing the hope Packard will be able to address their          group in the year.

7/11/63, Letter to Packard from Jon Riffel confirming the Packard will address the group November 12th. Attached are publications about the PMA.

8/8/63, Letter to Packard from Dick Kluzek of PMA giving details of the luncheon meeting Nov. 12.

8/9/63, Letter to Packard from Roy Brandenburger, VP, Monsanto Chemical Company, enclosing an article from Chemical Week on taxation. [article not in folder]

9/17/63. Letter to Packard from Jon Riffel enclosing a copy of the PMA publication, Manu-         Facts.

11/8/63, Letter to Packard from Jon Riffel giving details on luncheon meeting.

11/13/63, Letter to Packard from Harry Goodfriend, VP and Manager, Crocker-Anglo       National Bank, enclosing an ad from the Wall Street Journal describing the impact of high taxes on small business in California.

11/15/63, Letter to Packard from Joe Fessio, President Palo Alto Transfer and Storage       Company, saying he enjoyed seeing Packard again at the PMA luncheon.

12/9/63, Letter to Packard from Jon Riffel thanking him for speaking to the PMA group.

1/22/64, Letter to Packard from Karl Bizjak requesting a copy of Packard’s talk to the PMA. Handwritten note by Packard’s secretary says she called Mr. Bizjak to say there was no text.

The folder also contains some more PMA publications.

 

 

 

Box 2, Folder 60 – General Speeches

 

November 22,1963, Remarks on the occasion of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy

 

This speech has been moved to Box 1, folder 22B

Box 1, Folder 21 – HP Management

 

January 11, 1963, Management Conference, Monterey

No longer referred to conference by number. This is the only document in the folder. There were several comments from attendees along the line that there should be a published agenda ahead of time, and there should be more small discussion groups at conference. [It is interesting that there is no mention of Packard.]

 

 

Box 1, Folder 22 – HP Management

 

January 21-26, 1963, Sales Seminar, Field sales people, Palo Alto

 

1/24/63 Handwritten notes in Dave Packard’s handwriting, apparently for comments he    intended to make at the seminar. Some of the items he noted were:

1962 operations, shipments, orders

Balance between orders and shipments

Finished goods and work in progress

Better deliveries, more instruments in stock

Improved order processing

Need to improve R&D

General notes about GNP, space flight, taxes

1/21/63 Agenda for seminar

 

 

Box 1, Folder 22A – General Speeches

 

September 16, 1963,  Speech at Yokogawa Ceremony, Tokyo, Japan

 

9/16/63, Copy of typewritten text of Packard’s remarks announcing “the official beginning of our joint venture, Yokogawa-Hewlett-Packard Ltd.”

 

After giving the names of the directors of the new company, Packard says “I speak for all of the directors and officers of the Hewlett-Packard Company when I tell you we believe it is a great honor and a great privilege to be associated with Mr. Yokogawa, Mr. Yamasaki, and all of their fine and capable people in the Yokogawa Electric Works.” He says they “have known…of the magnificent contribution the Yokogawa Electric Works has made…to the scientific and industrial progress of Japan.

 

And Packard expresses the hope that “this new partnership between Yokogawa and Hewlett-Packard will be able to carry forward and expand this fine reputation which you have established.

 

“It is our aim that this new company will combine the most advanced technology of the United States with the most advanced technology of Japan, and thereby be able to develop and manufacture the finest instruments that are made anywhere in the world.”

 

“We in the United States are proud of the strong ties of friendship which have developed with the people of Japan over the past decade. It is my special hope that this new partnership which we are celebrating today will serve to strengthen those ties of friendship between our countries. Japan and the United States are joined in the common objective to support the freedom of  mankind against the tyranny of communism. This partnership between our nations will grow and become stronger as we are able to form sound and lasting bonds between the business concern of our respective countries.

 

“It is my firm hope that our new company will make an important contribution to the future of Japan by developing a useful measure of economic strength, and also a useful measure of friendship and understanding between us.

 

“Again, my appreciation and best wishes to each of you for being here with us this afternoon.”

 

 

Box 1, Folder 22B – General Speeches

 

November 22,1963, Remarks on the occasion of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy

 

11/22/63, Copy of typewritten text of Packard’s remarks

 

“There is little we an do to alleviate the nation-wide sorrow for the assassination of President Kennedy but to offer our prayers for him and his family – each in our individual way. In this hour of tragedy for our country we should remember that the affairs of the world will and must go on. Since much of the work we do contributes directly to the strength and stature of our country we will carry on with our work today, but we urge any employee who wishes to attend a memorial service to take time off during the day to do so.”

Box 1, Folder 35D – HP Management

7/16/63, Sales Seminar Luncheon

Packard’s handwritten notes for this talk give a mid year report of orders.

He says their job is not only to sell, but to help control expenses

Of the overall economy he say business is good – but not good enough.

He says new products will be the key to company success

He includes many statistics on company operations.

Box 2, Folder 49 – General Speeches

 

February 28, 1962, What Management Wants to Know About New Product Proposals, AMA, Chicago

 

2/28/62, Typewritten speech on above subject given by Packard.

“There is no subject more important for the manager of today than the problem of generating good new products unless it be long-range planning, and the two subjects are hardly separable.” Packard feels this interest in new products “has implications of larger significance. The survival of the free enterprise system will probably depend in the end on its ability to provide a better life for the people in the society which supports it. There has been much talk about the need for accelerating the growth of our economy. Behind this lies the need to continually improve the conditions for all of our citizens here at home – to demonstrate to the doubting part of the world that a free society can accomplish this mission better than can a socialist society….In this regard the ability of American management to improve its efficiency in translation of the advancing storehouse of new knowledge being generated from research into profitable new products could well be the major factor in accelerating the growth of our economy.”

 

Following this opening Packard says his “experience in this specialized area is limited to the new product program at the Hewlett-Packard Company and so I would like to tell you something about what we have been doing there, and then attempt to give you some general idea of how we go about the job.”  Packard explains that HP activities are “devoted exclusively to the development and manufacture of general purpose electronic measuring instruments. About 20% of  our sales are to the government agencies, largely in defense and now space. At least 25% of our sales go to prime contractors for the government, about 15% go to foreign markets, mostly Europe, while the remaining 40% goes to a wide variety of commercial customers generally in the industrial field.”

 

“Our sales have grown from an annual rate of 2.3 million in 1950 to the current annual rate of 100 million in 1962.” Packard acknowledges that some of this growth was from acquisitions but “all of the companies we have acquired are making the same general class of product, and have had most of their growth from new products generated during this same period.” Packard says that “most of the products we were making in 1950…we are still making today. But those products including a few which have been redesigned will account for only about 5% of our total sales in 1962. To maintain even this level of sales from technical products over a 12 year period has required some redesign, considerable quality improvement, strong effort in sales and service – and of course a good group of products to begin with. But with what might e considered a reasonable good job in management other than new product development our sales would, as I see it, have increased from 2.3 million to 5 million in more than a decade. This means over 90 million in sales we expect in 1962 will come from new products developed during the past 12 years. The general pattern of each new product – if it is a good one – and we will have to admit to a failure now and then – but each good new product will build up in volume over about a two year period and then reach a sales level that will remain relatively steady over a useful product life of often ten years or more…”

 

Packard describes the criteria they use in evaluating new product proposals and summarizes these in question form:

“1. Is it our main field of interest – is it a measurement device?

2. Is it a general purpose instrument – is it likely to have a broad market?

3. Is it a significant contribution to the field of measurements?”

 

Packard explains that “As a company grows it is not possible for the President or the top vice-presidents to continue to be in on the consideration and approval of each new product – this responsibility can be delegated to the division management,”  but he adds that they must use the above criteria and top management will take part in continuing evaluations of the project.

 

Packard says “There are some more specific criteria which we use to test each project which is proposed.”

 

“First as to policy – we believe that a good research and development department must be established on a stable long-term basis. For that reason we establish a level of activity which we believe can be maintained over a long period of time this entire activity is supported out of current income and is established in the general range of 6% to 8% of our sales dollar. This determines the number of scientists and engineers we have in the company and we add new people for this activity on the theory – and likelihood – we will have a long term opportunity for them.”

 

“The management responsibility here then is to see that this group of people are working on the most promising projects. Toward this end we make the best guess we can as to the probable development cost. Although we do not keep budgetary control, we do keep accurate cost records on each project. We also estimate the sales volume over a five year period and the profit we think we can establish. Our experience shows us that we should expect to obtain at least five dollars profit ever a five year period for each dollar we spend on development.”

 

“We have often considered the question of putting a large task force on a given project and hopefully accelerating the development, versus putting a smaller task force and allowing extra time. There seems to be no general rule that works best although we are tending to use larger groups today than we felt necessary”

 

“Another specific consideration we give to each project is whether we have the total capability to put the project through all stages of engineering. Often we find that we have a bottleneck in tooling or in some special production techniques, and we are anxious to see that these matters are properly considered on each individual project.”

 

Another important consideration which Packard discusses is that “…there be thorough communication between the people who understand the requirement, usually your marketing people, and the people who are going to do the development – your scientists and engineers. ….It is a major responsibility of management to establish the structure and atmosphere for this communication to be maintained during the course of each project.”

 

“And finally the matter of motivation. The new product process is a creative endeavor. Your people are being charged to do something that has not been done before. After all they aren’t sure how they are going to do the job when they start. This is especially true on products that involve important contributions to the field. Enthusiasm goes a long way and must be sustained if the project is to be really successful Often the simple fact that you top management people take an interest in a project – a continued interest – can be an important factor in generating the enthusiasm and sense of importance to the development team that will spell the difference between success and failure – or in the time necessary to get the job done.”

 

“This job of producing a continual stream of outstanding new products for the future is probably the most important and most challenging job in management today.”

 

March/April, 1962, Two letters from Packard and ten from his Secretary, Margaret Paull, sending copies of the above speech to people who requested same.

 

 

 

Box 2, Folder 50 – General Speeches

 

November 8, 1962, What the President Wants to Know About Technical Programs, AMA,

Los Angeles

11/8/62, Handwritten notes by Packard for this speech.

Packard makes some general observations about American Industry.

 

“a. We have progressed from [an] economy based on raw materials and       energy of manpower to an economy based on brainpower. No only new       devices, but also service.

 

“b. We do ourselves a disservice to measure our growth in GNP- steel        production – carloadings – etc. [There is] much evidence to demonstrate         that our standard of living has grown faster than GNP or conventional        indicators.

 

“c. One of [the] most important characteristic of [the] American economy is its unique ability to convert new knowledge into products that have

 

1.Usefulness (in concept)

2. Quality (in practice)

3. And as a result real value to the buyer.

 

“And so in many ways the Technical Programs of our companies are the most important programs we have to insure Stability and Growth to our companies.

 

“The magnitude of R&D spending is not an adequate measure of the value to technical effort but it is important for any given business to have a technical effort commensurate with the level for its segment of the industry.

 

“And the range is wide.

[For] all manufacturing [R&D spending runs] 4% -1/2 Gov’t financed, 1/2 company financed.

 

Food less than 1%

Industrial Chemicals 6%

Scientific instruments 7% 1/2 [government funded], 1/2 [company funded]

Electronics & Communications 10% 2/3 Gov 1/3 Company

Aircraft 20% 7/8 Gov 1/8 Company.

“And as a final generalization it is important to recognize that:

 

The character and success of your technical programs todaydetermines      perhaps more than any other factor the character and success of your           business tomorrow.”

 

Moving to a description of the way things are at Hewlett-Packard Packard describes the business at HP as “Electronic Measuring Instruments. In terms of above classifications Scientific Instruments & Electronic & Communications.”

 

“We devote about 10% of sales dollar to R&D – more than 9% Company sponsored & less than 1% Government supported

 

“Sales without acquisition 1952 –  5 million

With acquisition 1962 – 100 million

“If we reconstruct acquisition back to 1952 [the sales would be] 18 million to 100 million or 5 times growth in 10 years.

 

“Growth has been primarily [the] result of new products from R&D. More than 1/2 of 1962 volume is from instruments developed & put into production since 1957 – 5 years.

 

“[There is] ample evidence that even the relatively good group of products we had in 1957 would have produced only minor growth… – not considering new products

 

“We have established some general criteria to guide this program

 

1. We concentrate all effort in area of electronic instrumentation – General   Purpose.

2. We back up technical program directed electronic instrumentation with                           specialization in

a. Manufacturing – facilities know how – quality control                                                       emphasizing needs of this field

 

b. Sales Program – Selection of people – training – service oriented                            to the instrumentation area.

3. We place emphasis on making an important contribution in the field.

 

a. Example of oscilloscopes where [there was a] good market –                                 [and we] tried to go in by “brute force” doing the job just as well –                              not successful.

b. Same area where we made a very important technical                                            contribution – good value – good profit.

 

c. We have seen examples where competition has attempted to do                           same in our field – copy products – add frills – no success – now                                  selling out on fire sale basis.

 

“The success of a technical program depends first on [the] selection of [the]right new product projects. We (WRH and myself) were very close to this & personally involved. Several years ago [it became] evident that we could not personally participate in [the] evaluation of each program.

 

[We] tried to have review meetings, [but it] took two days just to go over [the] briefest review of every project. King Solomon feeding all animals.

 

“As a result, established criteria [and] assigned responsibility on divisional basis for product areas. Criteria:

 

Profit over five year product life [divided by] the cost of development should average 5-6/1. May be reasons why 1 or 2/1 will be acceptable. A good product can be 10 – 20 to 1.

 

“Divisional responsibility

 

Group of people concentrating on all factors in a given product area. Close             coordination between technology of that area – manufacturing capabilities      and market problems.

 

Motivation that comes from small group of people having opportunity  to             do something where they can enjoy result of their success.

 

“In the matter [of ] the President

 

Should:

1. Establish well defined objectives

a. Concentration on instrumentation

b. Make important contribution

 

2. Provide environment where capable people can work toward those objectives with freedom and with enthusiasm.

 

“In answer to the question “What the President wants to know about technical programs:

He wants to know that they are at a level which will make it possible for    his company to keep up with the industry.

 

He wants to know they are taking his company in the direction he wants to           go.

He wants to know they are being accomplished with some measure of        success in terms of adequate profits for each dollar of expenditure.”

10/29/62, Letter to Packard from Philip Marvin AMA,  Asking if Packard would be willing to serve as chairman for the half-day session at the November 8 conference where Packard is to speak.

10/31/62, Copy of letter to Philip Marvin, AMA, from Packard saying he would be willing to serve as chairman for the half-day session.

11/19/62, Letter to Packard from Philip Marvin, AMA, thanking him for participating in the AMA California program.

Box 1 Folder 20 – HP Management

 

January 5, 1962, Sixth Annual Management Conference, Monterey

 

12/19/61, copy of a typewritten letter to Dean Ernest C. Arbuckle from Dave Packard expressing the hope that Arbuckle will be able to join the conference. Packard says they intend to spend most of the day discussing how various service functions fit into the total organization – particularly marketing and engineering. Packard expresses the hope Arbuckle can come.

1/5/62 Copy of the agenda for the conference.

 

Box 1, Folder 35D – HP Management

2/23/62, Copy of internal HP memorandum from Lee Seligson to Barney Oliver reminding him of his scheduled participation in a forthcoming two day conference for engineers. Seligson summarizes the speakers and topics.. Attached are some pages handwritten by Packard outlining his remarks.

 

Packard lists such topics as:

 

Balance sheet analysis

Engineering overhead – trends

General course for the future

General problems of Divisionalization

Geographical problems

Opportunities for engineers

Importance of New Product Development on Growth of American Industry

Undated, early 1962, Handwritten notes by Packard titled: “Sales Meeting Speech”

 

“Thanks everyone for help in making 1961 a good year.

“1961 was a year of change

Sanborn

Harrison

Divisions

Microwave

Oscilloscope

Time & Frequency

“New products – We intend to continue to push our capabilities into other areas in future.

“Our success this far has been the result of:

Excellent performance in the detail of day to day job.

The enthusiasm of everyone

A good sense of direction  – a common purpose

We have developed a good ability to keep one eye on the ruts in the road and the other eye on the stars.

 

“Gentlemen, we intend to continue to build the Hewlett-Packard organization from the clerk to the scientist  – from the janitor to the salesman – from transducers to systems – from audio oscillators to sampling oscillators – in every area in which we are engaged – into the best, hardest hitting, most capable company in the world.

 

“If there is anyone here in this room today who can’t help us get this job done – we’ill damn well find someone who can!”

Box 2, Folder 45 – General Speeches

 

March 19, 1961, Meeting of HP Sales people at, IRE, New York, NY

This folder has been moved to Box 1, Folder 19A, and is included in the HP Management section of speeches for the computer file.

 

Box 2, Folder 46 – General Speeches

 

April 26, 1961, The Financing, Growth and Diversification of a company, S.A.M.A., Greenbrier

4/26/61, Typewritten speech on the above subject given by David Packard at the meeting of the Scientific Apparatus Makers Association.

Packard says he was a little surprised to see that the formal program said he would talk about Diversification, as well as Financing and Growth. He says that, actually, he is “…not a strong advocate of diversification as such.” He says he considers diversification as a means to an end, rather than an end in itself. And the end may be any one of a number of things – long term stability, growth, utilization of available resources, or simply to make a better profit.  Packard says diversification is used to spread the risk, “…but I think it is important to remind ourselves whenever you spread the risk you may spread the opportunity too. He tells the old adages: the first, “don’t put all your eggs in one basket – the other, do put all your eggs in one basket, then watch the basket. “I lean toward the latter as a preference”, he says.

 

Turning to growth he says there are divergent views as to its importance. Some people says they don’t want the problems growth brings, other people  “… take the view that a business must grow or die and that you have to run pretty hard just to keep up with what’s going on. So on both of these matters we need to get at the problem in a little different way.”

 

To do that he asks what should be the objectives of business. The answer, of course, varies he says. In times past profit for stockholders was considered the objective – nothing else mattered. “But today, and I think fortunately so, many businessmen say the objective of business is not just to make a profit, but to serve society, and it is time that all of us start from this point in considering our problems.”

 

Packard tells the audience that, some time ago, the management of  HP set down a number of specific objectives to help our people work toward common goals. “One of these objectives is to direct all our efforts toward the field of electronic instrumentation.”

 

The second objective Packard says, is to “concentrate on those areas where we feel we can make an important contribution to the advancement of science and the practical application of measurement.” If  we keep those two objectives in mind, Packard says they believe they can “…let the matters of growth and diversification fall where they will.”

 

Packard says that a major factor in the tremendous rate of growth in the instrumentation field over the past decade has been due to  government procurement. In addition to government purchases, there has been more emphasis placed on research throughout the country. Beyond these two factors Packard mentions “…the tremendous emphasis in the field of automation, recorders, computers, controllers, transducers, data handling systems of all kinds…”

Packard notes there has been some concern in the country about automation, “…and it may cause featherbedding and practices by Unions on the basis that automation is making these things necessary. It is a problem with us, and I think it’s going to be a problem in the future.

 

Packard says “…everyone seems to have overlooked the fact that the country has already faced the most serious problem of unemployment resulting from automation :that can be imagined…” He is referring to the telephone business and the change automation has brought in the need for manual operators to run switchboards. Packard points out that if we had not automated this function “…we would at the present time require every woman in the country, between the ages of 20 and 60, to work ten hours a day just to handle the telephone calls being made today.”

 

In the field of measurement instrumentation, Packard gives several examples where the accuracy and speed of measurement has increased many times over the past ten years. He says it seems clear that the future will bring growing opportunities in the field of scientific instrumentation, and in other areas as well. Packard admits that some people will ask, if all this growth is to be expected, can’t they just continue to make their present product and do a good job. Probably yes, he says, but “…there are in fact many more opportunities at our doorstep, as I believe the experience of our own company will indicate.”

 

Packard give some sales figures, saying that HP sales have grown about 26 times since 1950 – from $2.3 million per year to over $60 million – about 40% per year “This has come about not because of our emphasis on growth for growth’s sake, but simply because we have been successful in adding new products which have been an important contribution to this field of electronic instrumentation. And we have concentrated on just this one job.”

Packard shows that, of the $60 million of growth in sales over the last five years, most has come substantially from products introduced since 1955. “Thus without these new products our sales would have grown less than 5% per year as compared to over 30% which we have reached because of these new products which were added to our line.”

 

Packard makes that point that he is not saying that it is better to grow at 25% than at 5 or 10%. He agrees that it does bring more problems and headaches. On the other hand, he feels a growth rate of 5 or 10% is not even keeping up with inflation plus the growth of the economy as a whole, let alone the growth rate of the field of scientific apparatus. And. if anyone does not wish to meet this challenge, Packard says,  others will do so.

 

Packard says “…it seems to me that even if the amount of scientific work is not expanding, the magnitude of the advance in technology requires that better instrumentation be continually produced; and to the extent it can be produced, there is – and I think will continue to be – an opportunity for real solid growth. If we do indeed place maximum emphasis on making important contributions in our chosen fields of interest, our efforts will most likely result in a number of good new products year after year.

 

Packard talks a little about the cycle of a new product and says that, in their experience at HP, it usually takes about two years for a new product to be accepted in the market. “The build-up starts slowly, acceptance takes hold, saturation takes place and then volume levels off to a long term stable situation.”

 

Profit opportunities are greatest during the build-up stages, he says. “After saturation, the competition tends to set in, except in cases where we have come special proprietary situation and this competition tends to put great pressure on prices and profits in this long period of stable product life.”

 

Packard says that a study of the product cycle, as well as consideration of some other aims, led HP to add to their list of objectives – one related to profit. “And, we state this generally to the effect that we consider that profit is not the end and aim in business, but it is the proper measure of the contribution we are able to make. That profit, as well, is a means whereby we are able to continue to make these contributions.”

 

Moving from profit to finance, Packard says, that “When your business expands at the rate of 25 to 30 percent per year, some attention must be given to the resources available to support such growth” He acknowledges that “…with the investment community attracted to the so-called glamour industries, financing a growth situation is nowhere near as difficult as making a good growth situation in the first place and keeping it that way.”

 

Packard says HP has “…been able to go from a level of $2,300,000 in 1950 to a level of $60,000,000 in 1960 solely with resources generated from the reinvestment of the profits of our business” This requires that profits and cash flow returns increase total invested capital at the same, or more rapid rate, than the rate of sales increase.

 

Packard then says he wants to break down and analyze two factors because they are controllable in day-to-day management. “These two factors are the profit plus cash flow viewed as a percent of the sales dollar, and your capital turnover. Capital turnover is defined simply as the total annual sales dollars divided by total invested capital at the beginning of a period. By a simple exercise in elementary algebra, one can demonstrate that the percent of annual growth, which can be financed from profit alone, is equal to the percent of retained earnings and cash flow times your capital turnover. For our own company the product of these two factors has been held historically above 30 on the average, which is in excess of the average rate of growth during the past five years when the numbers have become large. By this process we have been able to provide the resources to maintain adequate financial strength over this entire period.”

 

Packard explains that this method is not the only way to finance a growing business. Resorting to the financial market for equity capital or other sources of capital. He gives the example of utility companies where the investment in plant assets is so high that it would take years of profits just to provide the plant needed to produce the profits.

 

Packard spends some time talking about the concern in the country that the labor force seems to be growing faster than the gross national product – with increased unemployment a possibility in coming years. He explores two solutions which are being considered. One is to increase investment in productive capital equipment, the other to increase investment in research and development. Packard feels correlations on these factors are rather poor and, furthermore, if one eliminates the effect of inflation the gross national product has actually been very constant at 3 percent over the period from 1909 to 1960. He concludes that it would probably be better for each company to make their own contribution by concentrating on how to grow in their own area.

Looking at foreign markets Packard tells of  HP’s experience in moving into Europe. He describes it as having “…a very difficult problem on our hands, especially with the vastly lower labor rates, and with the nationalistic preferences together with the problems of exchange and duties. If we can find a way to make important contributions either in new products or in service or in sales methods we can, I think, increase substantially our market penetration, most particularly in Europe where the economy provides a good market for advanced kinds of instrumentation.”

 

Packard says they started out by providing better service and quicker delivery of parts. As a result they have been able to increase their market  in Europe by 60 percent per year over the past  two years – and it appears will do so in 1961 as well.

 

Packard feels the development of the common market will pose a difficult problem if internal trade barriers are removed and nationalistic feelings reduced. European competitors would have a market which is two-thirds the size of the US market. This would give them the market to support a better new product program.

 

For this reason Packard says they feel it is important to become established in Europe now. But he emphasizes that “the important aspect is not growth or diversification, but in trying to make a contribution in those fields where we have some capability. We hope to do this by a better job in development – better engineering, better manufacturing, and better sales and service. We believe by concentrating on excellence from a base in Europe we shall be able to maintain our position over the long haul. I think if these things can be accomplished, financing will be easy and diversification will not be necessary.”

 

Packard summarizes the subject of growth by reading the formal objective as to growth. “This objective is to let our company growth be determined primarily  by our performance. It is limited on the one hand by the rate of growth we can finance from our current profits, and on the other hand by the rate at which we can build our product line and our market through customer acceptance and in accordance with other objectives.” He adds that HP uses this policy in considering the possibility of mergers and acquisitions of other firms as well.

 

Looking at two additional objectives which they have and which supplement the ones already discussed, Packard turns to their employment policy. He says he thinks the attitude is more important than the detail. And he feels they have been successful since they have “not had unions to contend with…”

 

Packard says “We want to provide employment conditions for our people that include the opportunity for them to share in the company’s success which they helped make possible; to provide job security based on their performance; and to try to provide for them the opportunity for personal satisfaction that comes from the sense of accomplishment in their work.”

 

Finally, they added an objective relating to corporate citizenship. “We say that we think it is up to us to meet the obligations of good citizenship by making contributions to the community and to the institutions in our society which generate the environment in which we operate. In accordance with this principal many of our people have participated in community affairs. We have done our share in supporting schools, universities, and other institutions and activities with financial help, and with the help of our people as well.”

 

Packard takes a few minutes to discuss a more important problem than any he has discussed thus far – “…a life and death struggle with this evil ideology of communism. While it may get out of hand and develop into a nuclear war with Russia or China some time in the future, even if it does not, we must all realize that peaceful coexistence is nothing more than a hollow phrase coined by the Russians to lull us into a sense of security and inaction.”

 

“We must never forget Krushchev’s statement, We will bury you and this is exactly what will happen to us, and to everyone in our free society and to everything that our free society stands for, unless we have the resolve and we undertake seriously to attempt to bury them first. In this problem the scientific apparatus industry has a very crucial role to play. The strength of the West against communism will be determined to a major degree by the scientific progress of our country, our Western allies, and by our ability to generate new scientific knowledge and reduce it to useful results of all kinds.”

 

“This, it seems to me, is the most important reason why all of us cannot afford to be satisfied with what we have done in the past. We must devote every resource at our command to discover new ways to make better instrumentation, we must attract the best people to our ranks and provide a creative environment for them, and so demonstrate to the world that capable people working in an atmosphere of individual freedom can produce more and better progress that a regimented people under the ruthless communist yoke.”

 

To do this will require, Packard says, “…that we place emphasis on making a contribution, and while profit is important, it should be used as a proper measure of the contributions we are able to make and not as an end in itself. If each of us in our own organization throughout the country do these things well, I have no doubt as to the outcome. With this kind of approach we shall learn that finance, growth and diversification are just minor problems, all in a day’s work, and that is as it should be.”

 

4/26/61, Typewritten prior draft of above speech with notations in Packard_s handwriting.

April 1961, Preliminary program of S.A.M.A._s 43rd Annual Meeting showing Packard

as one of the speakers.

5/8/61, Letter to Packard from Kenneth Anderson of SAMA complimenting him on his talk.

5/10/61, Letter to Packard from Bernard Kearney, President of The Torsion Balance Company, thanking him for coming to their meeting and speaking.

5/25/61, Letter from Margaret Paull, Packard’s secretary, to Kenneth Anderson of SAMA, asking about receiving a copy of his talk.

5/31/61, Letter to Margaret Paull from Kenneth Anderson enclosing three copies of the talk.

 

 

 

Box 2, Folder 47 – General Speeches

 

October 20, 1961, Talk at Boonton Radio Corporation New Building Dedication, Rockaway, N.J.

 

This speech moved to Box 1, Folder 19B.  It is found in computer file DPSpeechesSUHP

 

 

 

Box 2, Folder 48 – General Speeches

 

November 9, 1961, The New Challenge to American Industry, Purchasing Agents Association, Los Angeles

 

11/9/61, Typewritten speech by Dave Packard

 

Packard says he approaches this problem not as an expert, “but simply as one who believes the time is late and that we must each encourage more attention to and more understanding of these most difficult problems of conflict with the Communists.” He says experienced people in the country are focusing on the problem, but “…it is important also that the average citizen have an understanding of and an opinion on these subjects before certain kinds of action can be undertaken.”

 

Packard feels people have not understood the complexities of the international problems and he makes the point that there are no simple solutions. Over the past years proposals have been made but these have been rather simple in concept – “sheer wishful thinking.” He gives a few examples : President Eisenhower seeking to achieve “an understanding with the Russians”, establishing trade and cultural exchanges. All wishful thinking.

 

Packard had visited Russia a few months prior and he tells of their representatives said trade between our two countries should be revived. But it was always on their terms, and with the expectation that we would come to learn that their way was the best way.

 

Military solutions are also proposed which Packard feels fall into the area of wishful thinking: massive retaliation, or total disarmament. He quotes Ralph Waldo Emerson who said that “Americans were characterized by a hunger for sudden performance.” Packard mentions a series of events around the world; Krushchev using the U-2 incident to destroy the Paris Summit Meeting, the wave of student demonstrations which the Communist apparatus inspired in Tokyo, preventing President Eisenhower’s trip there. These were reinforced by strife in Africa, Asia and Cuba, the Berlin wall, resumption of nuclear testing by the Russians. “This series of events should finally and completely dispel any idea that simple idealistic solutions are available to us.”

 

To Packard, it is “…surprising that this of events has come as a surprise to so many people in America and the free world….He quotes Lenin as saying “What does it matter if three-quarters of the world perish, if the remaining one-quarter is communist” And Lenin again, “We will first take Eastern Europe, then the masses of Asia. We will surround the United States which will be the last bastion of capitalism.”

 

Packard tells of Khrushchev talking to the Communist Congress on January 6, 1961 where he set the date for Communists taking over the world as somewhere in 1975, and saying they would use all forms of warfare to achieve this objective – including propaganda, infiltration, threats, and diplomatic negotiations.

 

Packard feels there some evidence “…we are finally moving away from some of these simpler concepts such as the massive retaliation theory which was the key to our military position right up to the past two or three years….I would like to point out in passing that massive retaliation has been of little vale to us in Korea, in Asia, in Berlin, and it was not effective then because we have never been willing to use the strength we have.”

 

Packard feels that the government  “is beginning to see that we must build an effective second strike capability, we must build an effective brush fire force – a force that can deal with some of these local problems with conventional forces, and further we must implement our civil defense plans – and we must do all three of these things before we can really convince the Russians that we mean business wherever they try to move – and we must do these things before we can have any assurance that the peace can be maintained.”

 

Packard feels total disarmament is just another oversimplification – another kind of wishful thinking

 

“All this means simply as I see it that we are bound to put more effort into arms in the years ahead, and the next few years will be crucial. And this can be done, I believe, with assurance that it will increase the probability of peace rather than otherwise.”

 

Packard turns to the problem of subversion and infiltration. He says there is ample evidence that this is a serious problem. “Here again I do not believe there is a simple solution available to us. A frontal attack by militant right-wing groups could easily do more damage than good. The situation is too fraught with danger to be left alone.”

 

“…But continual vigilance is necessary in our schools – in our churches – and in our companies – and all of our institutions – to see that the communists and their fellow travelers are exposed for what they are wherever they appear. If this is done I believe the people of this country are sufficiently alert to the danger so adequate opposition to the communist inspired proposals will develop where it is needed.”

Packard says that even if we resolve the military problem and are able to control the Communists in our midst, “there is still one task which remains, and this task is for American business and American industry to demonstrate to the world, that our free enterprise system can continue to be superior to the communist system of economic slavery. The leadership of the West will finally be established only if our system continues to out produce the communist system in goods and services and in producing a better standard of living for all of the people, and further only if it succeeds in producing scientific accomplishment as well.”

 

“As Professor Pickering put it recently, within ten years we are likely to be able to sit by our television sets and watch a rocket put a man on the moon – will that rocket carry the flag of American freedom, or will that rocket carry the Hammer and Cycle (sic) – the flag of communist slavery. That event will signal the eventual domination of the world by Western Freedom, or the eventual domination of the world by Eastern communism.”

 

“That frames the New Challenge to American Industry and I believe we will measure up to this task.”

 

12/1961, Publication called Pacific Purchaser containing the full text of the above speech by Packard.

4/14/61, Copy of letter to Harlan Eastman, Beckman Instruments, apparently from bob Sundberg of HP who was making the arrangements for Packard’s talk at the Purchasing Agents conference. The letter tentatively accepts the November 9, 1961 date, but suggests Mr. Eastman check with Packard in August to confirm date.

4/25/61, Letter to Packard from Harlan Eastman, Beckman Instruments, thanking him for agreeing to speak at their conference and saying he will check with Packard in August.

5/3/61, Letter to Bob Sundberg from Harlan Eastman saying their group would be willing to pay Packard_s travel and hotel expenses.

8/18/61, Letter to Packard from Harlan Eastman asking if the November 9 date is still OK.

9/23/61, Copy of a letter to Harlan Eastman from Bob Sundberg of HP confirming the November 9 date.

9/25/61, Letter to Packard from Harlan Eastman confirming details for conference.

9/27/61, Copy of letter to Harlan Eastman from Margaret Paull, Packard_s secretary, saying Packard is away and as soon as he gets back she will tell him of Mr. Eastman need for publicity information soon.

10/31/61, Printed flyer announcing conference and Packard_s talk.

11/1/61, Letter to Packard from Harlan Eastman, sending the dinner program.

11/10/61, Letter to Packard from Harlan Eastman, thanking him for joining them and giving his talk.

11/13/61, Letter to Packard from W. O. Hokanson expressing appreciation for Packard_s talk.

Box 1, Folder 7 – Stanford

 

January 6, 1961, Faculty Club, Stanford

1/6/61, Handwritten speech by Packard to Faculty Club.

Packard describes the Board of Trustees  and their responsibilities. He lists “Educate for useful pursuit in life”; and “Prohibit sectarian instruction, but to have taught the existence of an all wise and benevolent creator.” The Trustees give the President power to: “a. Prescribe duties of faculty, and b. Generally control education part of University.”

 

Packard says trustees are all busy successful men, “dedicated to Stanford.” Says they have asked the President to “sharpen up objectives for future,” saying that education “has been given a critical new role in society.”

 

He describes the growth seen ahead, and asks “Where are we going to get this kind of money?” Packard reviews grants, building plans, gifts, saying “Will have to find 20-30 million in gifts of 10,000 or more.” He speaks of the need to “hold very tight control until we see where we are going. No new projects until we begin to evaluate chances of success.”

 

Packard asks if Stanford will live up to challenges ahead -graduate programs, professional schools, undergraduate college, the “Freshmen problem”? ”

 

Packard says “From what I hear about Freshmen program students can easily go through entire Freshmen year and half of the second without ever meeting a Professor. Might be more realistic to get a few more Professors in classes and leave the students to their own devices in their residences  instead of vice versa.” He refers to the idea of using Faculty Masters in Residence Halls as “Harvarditus – a disease Stanford has become susceptible to recently.” Packard goes on to talk of the Structure of Administration of Undergraduate Program. He lists the several Deans and expresses the “Hope some of you people get your heads together and do something – no a trustee problem.”

 

“Admissions closely related subjects.”  “Intellectual capability is important, — scholars interested only in intellectual development” “No better contribution to future of world to try and select boys and girls who because of personality, energy, and their intellectual capability are likely to be future leaders and expose them to the intellectual atmosphere of a great University, grades and aptitude tests alone won’t do.”

 

On athletes: “If we stay in intercollegiate athletics in a serious way we must be more realistic on admissions, financial support, schedules. If we can’t be more realistic we ought to get out & face music now.”

 

“One of the most important objectives is to enlarge & strengthen the faculty. The Trustees would plead for balance in each department. If we must have Marxist economists on our faculty let’s also have some who are staunch advocates of the American Free Enterprise economy as well.”

 

“The Trustees would defend to the last man the right of Professor Baran to extol the virtues of Castro & his Communism; although none of us would applaud his speech as an example of objective scholarship, least of all the trustees who heard him. We were and are each deeply disappointed that not a single member of the entire Stanford Faculty has risen to defend the contrary view. This kind of situation dampens if even slightly (illegible). One of the objectives of Stanford’s program is to increase the intellectual ferment among the faculty and among students. I would remind you that good wine takes more than ferment  – it takes good ingredients too. And a few bad grapes will spoil the batch. While it is true that too little ferment leaves you with only grape juice, too much ferment makes vinegar – and the process is irreversible.”

 

On the desire to give more emphasis to Humanities, Packard says he “…hopes some attractive & realistic proposals can & will be developed.”

 

“The trustees are concerned about many aspects of the University in addition to its financial needs. No doubt some of our concern comes from misunderstanding and in this we would all hope to know more about the academic aspects of the University. We are greatly impressed with fine progress Stanford has made in the last decade and we are aware of the possibility of even greater progress in the future. But we see the need not only in money alone but in critical examination and meticulous attention to the details of every aspect of the University. I would especially hope we can find a good inoculation for Harvarditus, Yaleitus, Europeanitus, and all others, and build Stanford to its own image of true leadership.”

Also included in this folder are several speeches given earlier by others, or Packard himself, apparently as research material for the above speech.

1/7/61 Typewritten letter to Packard from Alfred H. Grommon, Chairman of the Program Committee Stanford Faculty Club. Professor Grommon expresses pleasure and appreciation for Packard’s speech on 1/6/61 and responds to Packard’s comments concerning the fact that students may well enter their junior year before they have contact with a senior teacher. Professor Grommon laments the university emphasis on research as opposed to teaching and feels teaching must be considered more important than it has been.

 

1/12/61 Typewritten letter to Packard from Professor J. K. F. Oliphant. Professor Oliphant says Packard’s speech has “aroused a great deal of favorable comment.” He says the general tenor of comments have expressed appreciation to hear “a trustee who understands the major and pressing problems facing the University.”

1/13/61 Copy of typewritten letter from Packard to Professor Alfred H. Grommon who thanks Professor Grommon for his note of 1/7/61 and adds the thought that “If nothing else I hope my discussion at the Faculty Meeting left the impression that the Trustees are very much interested in the Faculty and its problems, and perhaps it will encourage all of you to let us know when we can be helpful.”

 

 

 

 

Box 1, Folder 8 – Stanford

 

July 20, 1961, Introducing Herbert Hoover, Pace Dinner, San Francisco

 

7/20/61, Typewritten speech titled “Remarks of David Packard Introducing The Honorable Herbert Hoover”, Dinner at Mark Hopkins Hotel

Packard notes the role of Universities in America saying they educate most of the PHD candidates in America and are therefore “a major source of teachers for all of our colleges and Universities. “Their task,”  Packard says, is “to educate the best of our youth of today — the young men and young women who will be the leaders of America at the end of the Twentieth Century.”  He points to Stanford as “one of the youngest of these leadership Universities.”

 

Packard then reviews some of the history of Stanford and how the founders  wanted  “A University of high degree…a center of invention and research.” Packard speaks of David Starr Jordan, Stanford’s first President, who said “We shall have a set of young men at Stanford such as have never been gathered together in America.”

 

Packard tells of  “problems of the thirties” and the “stress of World War II” saying these brought into focus the “need for new leadership, new action, and new vision. Fortunately, the new leadership and new action came into being from the Trustees, from President Treasured, but most of all from the vision of the great team we have today in Dr. Wallace Sterling, as our President, and Dr. Frederick Terman, as our Provost.”

 

Packard then speaks of specific examples of progress at Stanford: moving the Medical School to the Campus, a “brilliant” engineering faculty, appointments to the Business School which attracted nation-wide attention,. Adding “outstanding people in History, in English, in the Classics, in Psychology and in other schools and departments as well.”

 

Packard continues saying “The strength of our Nation in the future will not depend upon its vast national resources, nor in the advantage of its geography, as in the past, but solely upon the strength, capability, and the vision of its people. And in this, Stanford, and all of our other great Universities have an unmistakable and unavoidable responsibility.” Packard feels Stanford has “an opportunity to undertake this responsibility, and opportunity which is unequaled at any other privately supported University in America.”

 

“It is for this most worthy objective we need your help.” Packard says that “We intend to do everything in our power to continue the emphasis at Stanford on the importance of the individual and on the great strengths of the free society — and the free enterprise concept.”

 

“These great underlying principles which have served Stanford so well are the same that have brought America from its position as a second rate Nation at the turn of the century to its position today as the most powerful Nation the world has ever seen….These are the principles which have made America great and it is time that these be reaffirmed and restrengthened in our great Universities.”

 

Packard describes how “A young man by the name of Herbert Hoover enrolled in the first class at Stanford [October 1, 1891]. How he devoted himself  to the study of engineering and how, “…through his  participation in extra curricular activities he developed an outstanding ability in organization and management…He has understood well the importance of freedom for the individual and the great driving force of the free enterprise concept.. It is indeed befitting then that he has agreed to serve as the Honorary Chairman of the PACE Program — for there is no better way to begin this Plan of Action for a Challenging Era for Stanford  than to reaffirm those principles which have served our University and our Country well.”

 

“There is no living American who has contributed so much to his Country and to the welfare of mankind as our beloved Chief. We are all tremendously pleased and highly honored that he can be with us tonight. It is my privilege to present to you the Honorable Herbert Hoover.”

7/20/61 Typewritten draft of above speech, with handwritten notations by Dave Packard.

Box 1, Folder 19 – HP Management

 

January 13, 1961, Fifth Annual Management Conference, Monterey

This folder contains loose papers from the conference: agenda and handouts. It is apparent that determining who had authority to do what was a big topic of workshops.

 

 

Box 1, Folder 19A – HP Management

 

March 19, 1961, Meeting of HP Sales people at, IRE, New York, NY

3/19/61, Packard’s handwritten notes, written on hotel stationary, in preparation of this   meeting.

Packard tells the audience that 10 years ago he told this group: “Meet quota this year.” He adds that it is just as easy to meet a quota today – set the stage for the future.

 

Packard says that four years prior he realized that they must build for “Unlimited Horizons” “Bring each area of the company into the light of critical analysis. Take time but do the job right.”

 

Packard notes the need for long range planning on manpower, engineers, managers, education. And long range planning for Stanford Plant, Loveland, Germany, subsidiaries.. Plus long range planning on manufacturing methods, quality, customers, proprietary position. Long range planning for new products, implement new product program.

 

“We want to make every HP instrument so good customers can’t possibly afford to have anything else.”

 

Packard returns to long range plans  – in foreign business – HPSA, GMBH, German sales, English Program. And also Long Range Plans in management structure of company. Small units for action.

 

Long range plans in service, parts, standards, facilities.

 

“All of these efforts toward making each area of the company meet highest performance standards.” He says we should have “no illusions we have accomplished anywhere as much as we should have.”

 

Packard tells the group that what they heard this morning from our “own stellar team” will give some idea of the enthusiasm, energy keen ability to apply to this task.

 

And, he says, “We are not unmindful of the magnificent progress you people have made in the sales job. And, he admonishes them to have “…no illusion that you can rest on your laurels, in fact the job of selling HP instruments is becoming fantastically complex and will become more so.”

 

Speaking of their sales job, Packard tells them to explain why HP instruments are better than the competition’s. “To do the selling job, someone has to make the customer know what we have to sell – convince him of the help we can give,  activate his imagination. This takes effort, great effort from all sides advertising, direct mail…,    ??.

He tells them this is their responsibility – knowledgeable men call on customers and convince him that HP is a great company – the product is just what he needs, and close the sale. Packard tells them during the next week to strengthen their ability to do the job which we expect in 1961. “Spend as much time at the booth as possible.”  He tells the factory experts to carry the message, and the sales people to “Get the customers into the booth so we can give them the message. Grab them by the collar and haul them into the booth..”

 

“Our boys and girls in Palo Alto are steamed up as never before. Get on the band wagon with us. Let’s show these other outfits how a job should be done.”

 

 

 

Box 1, Folder 19B – General Speeches

 

October 20, 1961, Talk at Boonton Radio Corporation New Building Dedication, Rockaway, N.J.

 

10/20/61, Copy of typewritten text of Packard’s comments

 

Packard notes that they are gathered in a beautiful autumn setting to dedicate a  new building, and he says “As I look over this landscape I am reminded of the years I spent in Northern New York some 25 years ago – hiking through the woods – picking choke cherries – fishing and hunting deer. And the atmosphere of my new job was as peaceful and as stimulating as the countryside in autumn, for I had just finished a university course in California and was undertaking my first job at the General Electric Company in Schenectady.”

 

He tells how they were working on developing new ideas for vacuum tubes, “using metal envelopes instead of glass. We were developing a new kind of power tube for industrial use – the ignitron which could control unheard of powers.”

 

Packard recalls his resentment at being required to punch in and out of the time clock – the Wage and Hour Act having been recently passed. He says he worked many hours, usually 10 or 12 hours a day, and often on Saturday as well “My pay of $28 a week was enough to live on and there were challenging things to be done.

 

He says “There was very little work on military devices – at the company the Aircraft and Marine Department made motors for submarines and naval gear of various sorts but World War II seemed very remote – the danger of Hitler was not apparent to us and we were looking into a future which promised a peaceful life for the whole world and the opportunity for a young engineer to do great things.

 

“It was about this time and in very much the same atmosphere and spirit that Mr. Loughlin [William Loughlin founded Booton Radio Corporation in 1935] was thinking that his newly developed device called the Q meter might make an important contribution to this youthful field of radio engineering – though little did he anticipate, I suspect, that this Q meter would become such an important device – or that this youthful field of Radio engineering would become the great electronic industry that it is today.

 

“As one views the combined changes of the Russian Military threat which now has the ability to destroy 140 million Americans and reduce our productive lands to a blackened waste in a matter of hours – these capabilities combined with a godless disregard for the rights of the individual – with the ideas that an individual person is useful only to the extent and only as long as he serves to promote the purposes of the government.

 

“As one views these facts the conclusion becomes clear and unavoidable – we must individually and collectively devote our strength, our abilities, and our resources, to the preservation of our country, both its land and its ideals.

 

“And even within our own boundaries – the rising threat to the free enterprise system which has enabled the United States – with 1/6 of the world population to generate half of the world’s wealth – threat from people who think progress can come from restricting work – from not growing crops – from people who think that big business is inherently evil but big government is inherently good.

 

“Indeed we are facing some of the most serious problems in the history of our country.

 

“And it is therefore proper that in dedicating this new building here today that it be dedicated to the strengthening and preservation of our free society – and a lesser objective is not worthy of our efforts and abilities.

 

“But in view of these great and frightening developments – what can be done?

 

“The solution lies in strengthening wisdom and strength – we would be presumptuous to assume we as individuals will have wisdom equal to the task – but we can and do have an important responsibility in this strengthening.

 

“Our objective to design and build the best of scientific instruments – design, manufacture, service – imagination, craftsmanship and industry. We do in fact have scientific strength.

 

“We must make contributions for the future. We must also prove to the world that our free enterprise system is more efficient – that it not only produces a superior product – but also provides better opportunities for people.

 

“And so lets join today in dedicating this new facility – not to continue the accomplishments of the past, but rather to the challenging opportunities of the future.

Box 1, Folder 35D – HP Management

10/26/61, HP memorandum from Lee Seligson to members of a development program for engineers telling them they have been selected for the program

 

11/1/61, Internal HP memo to Packard from Lee Seligson on the subject of the development program for engineers. He reminds Packard of the date and time he is to speak to the group.

 

11/1/61, Typewritten program for the training class. The objectives of the program are stated as: “…to explore the objectives and philosophy of HP in light of its present organizational structure; to study some of the fundamentals of organization theory; and to relate these principles to the Engineer by examining his role in the organization.”

 

11/14/61 through 3/1/62 – Typewritten schedule of training classes.

 

11/28/61, Text of Packard’s remarks to the class of engineers – handwritten, ten pages long. The title is: “The Reasons for this Program.”

 

Packard gives two reasons for the program: “To help you do your job better and therefore to help the company do its job as a company better; [and]… to help you understand the objectives of the Company, and the opportunities that are available to you here and hopefully to give you some guidance and help so you can better avail yourself of the opportunities.”

Box 2, Folder 36 – General Speeches

 

February 15, 1960, Future of Industry in Palo Alto, Rotary Club, Palo Alto, CA

 

2/15/60, Typewritten copy of speech on the Future of Industry in Palo Alto.

Packard’s first point is that industry is creative and must have creative people to succeed. And creative people must have an attractive environment to attract them to come and stay. Packard names several companies that have attractive facilities.

Packard points to the environment of the Stanford Industrial park as an important factor in attracting industry like Lockheed, Varian and HP.

 

Packard talks of the importance of research to industry. “Industry is spending nearly ten times as much on research and development as it was fifteen years ago. And he points to the proximity of Stanford nearby as a special benefit for local industries. “And so, for industry in general, the presence of a good environment for creative people – and special opportunity to enhance a research and development program – are both strong attractions. The Palo Alto-Stanford area has both and therefore has a unique capability of attracting and developing the best in industry.

 

Packard asks “Why should Palo alto want industry?” One reason is they pay taxes,  he says. “Were it not for the industrial and commercial developments on the Stanford lands – the Palo Alto schools would be in serious financial trouble today.” Packard says he cannot refrain from citing some figures for HP: “We are paying over a quarter of a million dollars a year in taxes, most of which goes to the schools. We are also paying our employees twelve million dollars a year in wages and salaries and they pay taxes, too, and patronize your merchants, etc….” And, Packard adds,  “Our company in the last three years has contributed one and one half times as many dollars to local charities as it has paid in taxes to Palo Alto.”

Packard feels “the companies in the Stanford-Palo Alto area have set an outstanding example in being good community citizens.” And he asks “What, then, is the major attraction for industry in the Palo alto Area? For if we conclude that companies have contributed to the community and in fact should be classed among your best citizens, how do you attract more such good citizens.?”

 

Packard feels “It is easy to demonstrate that Stanford University is far and away the most important factor in attracting industry to Palo alto.” and he names several companies which were all founded by Stanford graduates. “They have been successful largely because of the ideas which came and continue to come directly from the University.” And he says “These industries are of great value to Stanford as well, the rent they pay for their leases being in many ways the least important factor. The presence of these industries has attracted a number of distinguished men to the faculty in recent years – it has provided a convenient association for student and faculty alike with the practical engineering problems of industry to round out their academic work at Stanford.”

 

Packard tell more of how industry-university relationships work. One way is the honors-cooperative program whereby students can work and also get time off to pursue graduate degrees. And professors work at HP as consultants and also have time to teach. Also,” many people on our staff (at HP) give lectures at Stanford and provide the students with the benefit of practical experience in their field.”

 

Packard tells of the “grants to the University made by industry in recognition of the help they have rendered. These grants are not always in the quid pro quo class. Many – an increasing number – are unrestricted on the theory that the programs at Stanford in the humanities and other areas may in the long run be as important as those in the physical sciences.” Packard tell of the growing industry-university association in the area of chemistry, biology and medicine., and predicts an association in these areas similar to that of electronics.

 

Packard says the Board of Trustees sees further expansion of the Industrial Park. “The attractive environment of the Stanford lands combined with the close association with Stanford University makes the Stanford Industrial Park the most interesting opportunity in the United States for the kind of industry Palo Alto should have…. This makes a pattern which clearly meets the test of good government – the most food for the largest number of people.”

 

2/15/60, Several sheets of supporting figures on industry contributions, taxes, employment etc.

 

 

 

Box 2, Folder 37 – General Speeches

 

February 25, 1960, Management Looks at the Accountant, National Association of Accountants, No place given.

 

2/25/60, Two pages of handwritten notes by Packard, rather cryptic, on the subject           “Management Looks at the Accountant”

“Management

Make Plan of Action

Implement Plan

Evaluate performance

Historical role of Accounting  is (   ?    ) Purpose has been

to evaluate performance.

Balance Sheet

P & L Statement

Absolute measure – comparative measure”…

“Accountant need to think how best to present data so Manager can really understand what is going on.

 

More need for imagination. Growth potential – % Annual Growth = % profit X turnover.

 

The Accuracy dilemma – Bookkeeping – auditing function has need for accuracy.

 

The decision making problem in management.

 

We evaluate so we can see how good are the decisions we have made and so we can continually modify these decisions to improve performance. We need data fast and complete but not to (sic) high accuracy.

 

The planning function of management – statistical extrapolation. – Analysis New techniques – computer – mathematical forms. Centralized data processing”

 

 

 

Box 2, Folder 38 – General Speeches

 

March 2, 1960, Engineering Scholarship Fund, Hertz FoundationNo place given

3/2/60, Typewritten speech by David Packard, for Hertz Foundation

Packard speaks first of his pleasure in welcoming Mr. Hertz and being able to express “appreciation to him and his foundation for establishing this pilot plan of his engineering scholarship fund in the Bay Area.”

 

Packard tells of his early decision in high school to pursue a career in engineering, and tells Mr. Hertz  “that you are doing a great service for the young men who will be supported by your scholarship program in encouraging them to make an early decision on an engineering career.”

 

Packard feels this program will also be an important contribution to our nation, and he tells of his recent trip to Russia. He tells of the strong curriculum there where the youngsters study years of English, math, physics, chemistry. However, he says “I can assure you that our good high schools are better than their good secondary schools. I believe that they are better for a very important reason. In our schools capable teachers and administrators work in an atmosphere of freedom, and under our system they do a better job in education than do the teachers and administrators under the tight bureaucratic control of the Soviet Government.

Packard says “while we have been falling behind terms of engineers produced I am confident that our free, private enterprise system is already responding to the challenge and we will succeed in this task.”

 

“I do not wish to imply that the job is yet done. We do need many more engineers in our schools. In this regard I would like to say a word or two about the importance of engineering to our national defense effort…..Engineering may very well be the most important profession of all in determining the survival of our country. For the decision is going to be made in the final analysis on the technical competence of America in relation to the technical competence of Russia. We need skilled diplomats, we need leaders with the broadest and finest training that can be had–But unless we have the engineers who are able to translate our scientific advances into items of hardware with greater proficiency than our Soviet adversaries, and unless they can do this over the long term, sooner or later our diplomats, our leaders, our entire country will be dealing from a position of weakness which is utterly hopeless and we will have lost the battle.”

Packard speaks about the engineering as a personal career. “Engineering provides great opportunity for individual initiative and individual contribution. It provides opportunities for constructive teamwork as well, for those who prefer it. the history of our country from the beginning to the twentieth century was the story of the individual man and woman, the pioneers, and their conflict in extending and developing the great land frontiers of the nation. The history of America in the twentieth century is being written. Its greatest chapters will be the story of the engineers and their efforts to conquer and exploit the frontiers of science and technology.”

 

He closes with “Mr. Hertz you are doing our country a great service in establishing this Engineering Scholarship foundation. I feel confident that the young men and young women whom you will reward and encourage through your efforts will fully justify your great love of our country.”

 

Box 2, Folder 39 – General Speeches

 

March 8, 1960, Supervisory Development Program, HP, Palo Alto

3/8/60, Copy of Typewritten speech by Packard to group of supervisors in training.

Packard’s opening statement sets the tone for his talk: “I’m glad to have this opportunity to get together with you and discuss how each of us can do our job more efficiently, because as the company grows I think this is going to become crucial in determining whether we are able to continue to grow and keep an efficient organization and maintain the character of our company which we think is important.”

 

Packard says he wants to “discuss why a company exists in the first place.” “I think many people assume, wrongly, that a company exists simply to make money. While this is an important result of a company’s existence, we have to go deeper and find the real reasons for our being. As we investigate this, we inevitably come to the conclusion that a group of people get together and exist as an institution that we call a company so they are able to accomplish something collectively which they could not accomplish separately. They are able to do something worthwhile – they make a contribution to society (a phrase which sounds trite but is fundamental). ….You can look around and still see people who are interested in money and nothing else, but the underlying drives come largely from a desire to do something else – to make a product – to give a service – generally to do something which is of value.”

 

Progressing to the question as to why HP exists Packard says, “I think it is obvious that we started this company because bill and I, …felt that we were able to design and make instruments which were not as yet available. …Our contribution is really measured by the instruments each of you has helped to make – the new instruments engineering has designed to help people make measurements more efficiently, more accurately, more conveniently, less expensively than could have been done otherwise. So, in the last analysis, the reason for our existence and the measure of our success is how well we are able to make our product.”

 

Packard tells the group that management has made some studies on how well HP is doing in the marketplace and concluded that “where we are making instruments, we are supplying about 1/3 of the country’s total requirements….Packard tells of visits to customer plants find “our instruments are being used in very important work; the advancement of science, defense of our country and many other areas.”

 

“How does the individual person fit into this picture? We have looked at the company and found it exists to make a contribution – not just to make money. I think we can say the same about the people in the company. The individual words, partly to make money, of course, but we should also realize that the individual who is doing a worthwhile job is working  because he feels he is accomplishing something worthwhile….I want to emphasize then that people work to make a contribution and they do this best when they have a real objective when they know what they are trying to achieve and are able to use their own capabilities to the greatest extent. This is a basic philosophy which we have discussed before – Management by Objective as compared to Management by Control.”

 

Looking at specific objectives Packard says, “The first objective is to continue in the field of electronic instruments. We don’t plan to go into other areas, at least in the foreseeable future. …So our instruments are used in three general areas; R&D, Production and field Maintenance.”

 

“The other objective which is complementary to this and equally important is to try to make everything we do worthwhile. We want to do our best when we take on a job. He gives some examples of creative instruments over the last year. “They give people who buy them methods of making measurements they could not make before those instruments were available.”

 

Turning to another objective Packard says that “creative design alone is not enough and never will be. In order to make these into useful devices, there must by meticulous attention to detail. …Attention to detail is as important in manufacturing as it is in engineering.”

 

“Selling can be analyzed the same way. We are anxious to find new approaches to selling, but again – detail is important. We certainly are not anxious to sell a customer something he does not want, nor need. …Also, we ant to be sure that when the instrument is delivered, it performs the function the customer wanted.”

 

Financial responsibility is equally important, however different in nature. It is essentially a service function to see we generate the resources which make it possible for us all to do our job.”

 

Packard continues with another area objective: “Now Bill and I feel that our company has a responsibility to our employees. We are not interested only in making a better product. We feel that in asking you people to work for us, we in turn have an obligation. This is an important point and one which we ask each of you to relay to all the employees. Our first obligation, which is self-evident from my previous remarks, is to let people know they are doing something worthwhile. We must provide a means of letting our employees know they have done a good job. You as supervisors must convey this to your groups. don’t just give orders. Provide the opportunity for your people to do something important. Encourage them”

 

“Over the years we have developed the policy that it is important for the supervisor to thoroughly know and understand the work of his group….I don’t see how a person can even understand what proper standards are and what performance is required unless he does understand in some detail the very specific nature of the work he is trying to supervise….I want  emphasized you can supervise best when you know a great deal about the work you are supervising and when you know the techniques of supervision as well.”

 

Looking at other aspects of supervisory work Packard says, “As supervisors you will be expected to set high standards of behavior. …Tolerance is tremendously significant….You must have understanding – understanding of the little things that affect people. You must have a sense of fairness, and you must know what it is reasonable to expect of your people. You have a good set of standards for your group but you must maintain these standards with fairness and understanding.”

 

On job continuity Packard says, “We have always considered that we have a responsibility to our employees to plan our work so we can assure job continuity. We do not intend to have a “Hire _’em and fire _’em” operation. Bill and I do not feel this is the best way for a company like ours to operate. We have very rigid requirements of technical competence to maintain and rigid requirements in the quality of our equipment. This requires that we have and keep good people at all times. So we feel it is our responsibility to provide opportunity and job security to the best of our ability.”

 

Looking beyond the immediate company Packard looks at HP’s responsibility to the community at large. Those things which the institutions in our community provide, the general sense of moral values, the general character of the people that come from the schools, the churches and other institutions; these are things which we accept and are extremely important in the operation of an organization like this. …If we consider these matters more seriously, we realize that if these things did not exist, it would have a serious effect on our ability to do a job. So it follows that we do have a responsibility as a company, and as individuals, to help support these activities. You all know that Hewlett-Packard contributes as a company to many of these institutions and we encourage our people to take part – without defining who should do what – but leaving this to free choice.”

 

“Last of all, I want to say that I have mentioned our primary objectives but none of these can be accomplished unless the company makes a profit. Profit is the measure of our contribution to our customers – it is a measure of what our customers are willing to pay us over and above the actual cost of an instrument. …So profit is the measure of how well we work together. It is really the final measure because, if we cannot do these things so the customer will pay us, our work is futile.”

 

“In addition, the margin we have – what is left over after paying for the material, labor, overhead and so on – is the source of our capital for growth. New buildings and facilities and better equipment generally strengthen our position to do a better job.”

 

Our objectives are tremendously vital and, it is your job to help us translate them to all of our employees.”

 

Box 2, Folder 40 – General Speeches

 

March 19, 1960, HP’s Business Outlook for the Next Ten Years, Sales Meeting , New York

 

3/19/60, Typewritten (with some handwritten notes by Packard) outline of a talk by Dave Packard looking at prospects for HP over the next ten years.

 

Packard tell his audience the purpose of the talk is to review “some of the long-range planning done by HP about a month ago to try to define how our company might grow over the next decade.” He starts by reviewing 1959 operations.

 

Packard says 1959 was an “excellent ” year, both from the stanPackardoint of sales as well as for new products introduced. He shows a slide which indicated the “Largest increase in sales of any year”, and the “Largest new product increment of any year.” From this data Packard concludes “…we are not at our opportunity ceiling”.

 

Another slide is titled “HP and Subsidiaries Map” Packard says this slide shows the “major changes in organization during 1959 have added a whole new dimension to problems that rapid growth creates. And he adds that, as a result, HP top management met to see “how we can move to meet the challenges of this growth.”

 

Packard reviews the topics discussed at this meeting – the first being the economic outlook for 1960. He says data from the National Planning Association shows GNP to be up 60% by 1970, population up by 21%, and per capita disposable income up by 39%.

 

Forecasts of total market growth are up 2.1 times with a trend toward less dependence on defense and government spending. With the favorable market outlook, Packard looks at HP’s market position by product group:

 

Packard says the total market for instruments in 1959 was $300M and that HP competed in one half of this; and that HP has about 38% of the business where they compete. He concludes that “we have lots of “product room ” to grow.”

 

Packard looks next at the demands this sales growth will place on the factory organization. He sees a tremendous demand for people but “more particularly, for engineers and supervisors – just the kind of population studies show to be in critical supply…” He sees this as “the most significant problem in future.”

 

Packard turns next to a plant forecast. He sees a need for “12 new plants of about 100K square feet each over the next ten years.” The total capital cost may be $50M, with inventory and A/R adding another $40M. “Yet total profits over period, if we continue to do our job, will more than adequately cover this ambitious program.”

 

Packard summarizes the conclusion of top management on opportunities for growth over the next ten years:

 

1. “Markets are promising

 

2. Financing can be generated internally

 

3. Room for new ideas and products in their market area

 

4. People are the key to continued growth

 

5. Future looks bright but to a large extent our degree of success will be                   up to you.”

 

 

 

Box 2, Folder 41 – General Speeches

 

April 26, 1960, Planning in Defense Industries, AMA, San Francisco, CA

 

4/26/1960, Handwritten notes  by David Packard for speech.

 

Packard first  speaks of the “special conditions of defense industries.” He says that long range planning very important – war plans “have seldom been realistic, but there has been time to reorganize in the past.” Packard says the next war will be won by the side with the best long range planning.

“Above all long range planning must be closely related to the basic company objectives – You must know where you want to go before you can orderly plan how to get there. ….Long range planning should have as its objective the development of your company to do a better job in the future than you are doing today – not just to get business – not just to stay alive.”

 

Packard looks at the problem of knowing what the military market will be.

“a. Look at overall data – GNP, military spending estimates…..

b. Trends in overall marketing directions….

c. Detail trends in your special field…. ”

 

“”For long range planning value data must be collected & organized – and made available to people at various levels”

 

Looking at the unique problems of long range planning in defense industries Packard discusses:

 

a. The difficulty of  evaluating long range trends in military techniques

b. Rapid technological changes because of heavy R & D expenditures.

c. Weapons systems are large and complex.

d. Often no prior experience to rely on

e. It is difficult for one company to evaluate its position in the market.

Some of the problems in making long range forecasts:

“1. Technological change

2. Changing climate of defense and war.

3. Utilization of military goods or know how from military work for civilian products….”

Packard says the “Most important question regarding long range planning in defense industries is will there be total disarmament in the foreseeable future. If the answer is “yes” then little to do except to convert to civilian markets. If answer no then plan for continued defense business.”

 

4/26/60, Earlier draft of above talk, in Packard’s handwriting.

Box 2, Folder 42 – General Speeches

June 7, 1960, The Responsibility of Business to Society, AMA, New York

 

6/7/1960, Typewritten speech on above subject given by Dave Packard in an AMA management course.

 

Packard opens the discussion on the subject by suggesting that many in the audience may wonder why we should spend time talking about it at all, and he invites them to take a “little time on the general problem.”

 

Packard raises the proposition that  “As one moves along to responsibility for the management of larger nits it becomes more evident that the management profession includes more than the summation of the individual management skills, that management involves the entire sphere of influence of the business.”

 

He describes the importance that employees attach to their jobs: “These people spend more of their waking hours in their job than in any other single activity. How they think, how they vote, what they tell their friends, their social attitude in every detail is influenced by what goes on at the job. Packard feels management has failed to understand this and , as a result, “employee attitudes have been influenced far too much by unions and by other groups of  people in the community.”

 

Business  institutions…are among the most important institutions or groupings of people in the nation. They produce much of the basic wealth, provide income for a majority of the people; they are the source of our military strength and in many ways our nation is strong and healthy when the business organizations are strong and healthy.”

 

Packard points out that the environment in which business exists, have a large influence on the success of a business.  “This environment is continually changing under pressure from many sources, pressures generated by the people, pressures of other organizations and groups of people. Management is incredibly irresponsible to assume a hands-off attitude and hope that these molding forces of a changing society will somehow automatically develop a better environment for his business. I think management has been incredibly irresponsible in the past to refuse to accept its proper responsibility to society at large. As a result, Union power has grown and has in many ways generated an environment hostile no only to healthy development of business but also inimical to the welfare of the country as a whole. Government control of business has grown and again it has generated an environment often hostile to business management.”

 

Packard feels that “…these trends are not the result of the perversity of Union officials or of Government people….We are simply experiencing the result of management’s failure in the past to recognize this responsibility to use its power wisely. the hour is late but I believe we are becoming aware of the situation in time.”

 

Packard quotes some enlightened managers or observers of business: “Ralph Cordiner of General Electric expects his management people to “manage their business in the best interests of all concerned.. Meaning customers, shareholders, employees, suppliers, retailers and others. Another is Peter Drucker, the author, who proposed that management is a “central social function in society and economy”.  And Drucker again: “No policy is likely to benefit business itself unless it also benefits society”.

 

Packard moves from these concepts to specific steps management can take if it wants to act on “the proposition that business is responsible to society at large.” “It seems to me one of the important actions which can be taken by management to assure that day-to-day decisions and actions will reflect these social responsibilities is to state some of them in the company creed or company objectives. I advocate strongly the basic philosophy of Management by Objective for I believe if the management team has generally accepted common objectives each member of the team can be left to solve his own problems with assurance his solution will be positive and implement the progress of the entire company.”

 

Packard suggests four objectives:

 

1.”Our company is in business to make a contribution to society.

2. “It is our responsibility to recognize the dignity and personal worth of every person we employ–and that we have the responsibility to include opportunities for our employees to share in the company’s success which they help make possible.

3. “The success of our company is to a large degree the result of the environment in which we operate. such freedom as we have comes from our system of government. Many of the ideas we use in our day-to-day work have come about because the frontiers of knowledge have been pushed back by our great universities. Our families, our churches and our schools provide the intellectual and moral training on which we rely every day and never five the matter a second thought. We must support these great institutions in jour free society with all the strength at our command if we wish to preserve a favorable environment for our management work

 

4. “Profit is the proper measure of the contribution we have made to society. To produce a profit is not an end and aim in itself but to produce a profit provides the means by which we can accomplish all our other objectives. Profit is the proper measure of the value our company has added in designing and making its products.”

 

Packard goes on to explain how, at HP, they have encouraged management people to take an active part in community affairs; from Boy Scouts, Jr. Chamber of Commerce and school committees, to Mayor of the city, President of the School Board, Chairman of the Hospital Board, Head of the Community Chest, and others.

 

Financial contributions is a problem businesses face. “I would start with the position that a company has the responsibility to support a number of charitable institutions and in general the support should be to those activities and institutions which have a significant effect on the environment in which the company operates. To put it in plain English you are on safe ground if you ask yourself is this contribution for something that is really important for my company.”

 

It should be obvious to all that publicly supported education deserves and needs no charitable support from business. I would make this one exception–Contributions of equipment or special help in special areas to public schools and state supported colleges and universities may be justified but generally only on a basis of very special interest.”

 

“Business managers , however, should take an active interest in legislation, local and state, establishing levels of tax support for publicly supported education. Your company has to help pay the bill. Your company has a real interest in the quality of education in the community or at the colleges and universities from which it may draw its people.”

 

“Private business has a very special reason to be interested in privately supported and independent colleges and universities. these institutions are a part of our free enterprise system, they provide much of the leadership for all education–They can survive and maintain their positions of leadership only with the support of all segments of the society in which they exist.” And Packard suggests such specific support as, R & D, scholarships/fellowships, direct grants.

 

Packard goes to the sometimes vexing question of managerial participation in politics. “The practice in the past has been in general to refrain from political participation on the theory that a manager’s job was to run his business and what does politics have to do with this. The fact that Union Political activity has grown in scope and magnitude with leaps and bounds and the fact that there has been a trend of anti-business legislation, or at least legislation not especially favorable to business, has caused many management people to reconsider this whole problem.”

 

It seems to me that it is becoming more generally accepted that management should take a more active part in politics and there are a few ground rules we might consider.

 

“1. Our democracy is predicated on an educated  public. Voters who understand the issues they are voting on. Here management people can make an important contribution to help keep their employees informed and interested on the vital issues in the political area which affect the business climate.

 

“2. Management can encourage employees to take an active part in local, state and national politics–encourage this by indicating to employees this is a desirable thing to do and by allowing people some support in time allowances, etc.

 

“3. Except on issues which clearly and precisely affect the business environment of the company, as a company should not take a partisan position on issues nor should the company as a company take a position on a candidate.

 

“4. To have any effect the interest of management in politics should be a continuing year-round effort. Not much is likely to be accomplished by an effort for a few weeks before an election now and then.”

 

Packard names some  “other areas where management can and should participate in recognition of its responsibility to society. One of these is participation in some of the activities which are directed toward common planning for the long range national interest. If it is important for us to have in this country a “National Policy of Economic Growth” this must be an effort of private businessmen.”

 

“It seems to me then that managers should recognize that business does have a very large responsibility to society. I think by recognizing this fact, placing it squarely before your management team so it is one of their important guiding objectives, you and your management team can do a better job in guiding and developing your own business and at the same time you can make an important contribution to the preservation of and the strengthening of an entire Free enterprise System.”

 

6/7/60, Typewritten “Notes on The Responsibility of Management to Society”. A brief summary of Packard’s talk above.

6/7/60, Several 5″x8″ sheets each with a topic for discussion. Apparently made up as the course.

6/7/60, Typed outline of the AMA Management course.

 

Box 2, Folder 43 – General Speeches

 

August 24, 1960, Electronics Management’s Biggest Challenge, WEMA, Los Angeles, CA

 

8/24/60, Printed copy of David Packard’s speech.

Packard reviews the “troubled times” around the world: Russia posturing, a pro-Communist Castro in Cuba, the people of Africa straining against their traditional bonds. “These problems must be of concern to every thinking American and I know of no more capable, thinking group of Americans than can be found in the electronics industry.”

 

Reviewing some of the contributions made by the electronics industry which were crucial to winning World War II,  Packard mentions Radar, Sonar, the proximity fuse. Today, the strength of the military is aided by reliable communications, precise navigation, complex data handling and analysis and control systems. “The hope held by many individuals that our industry can and should become less dependent on military work is sheer wishful thinking that borders on irresponsibility. I will be the continuing task of the electronic industry to add to our military strength for many years ahead but I think there is more we can and should so.”

 

Helping to develop a more realistic understanding of the problems we face is one way. Packard sees wishful thinking as all too characteristic of American thinking – isolationism after World War I and II, a search for some simple formula to make problems disappear. “In these troubled times we as a nation have been fatefully unrealistic on the three most important issues..

 

“First – We have failed to understand the true nature of communism and its chief advocate, Russia. We do not properly evaluate her strengths and her weaknesses and we won’t believe her intentions.

 

“Second – We have failed to fully appreciate and take advantage of our own strengths and capabilities, both our military capability and the importance of our own traditions and ideas and the good will they generate.

 

“Third – We do not seem to understand the extent or importance of the growing tide of independence and economic development occurring among  the majority of the peoples of the world. These pressures are so great and so widespread that they are bound to influence the course of history for centuries in the future and they will not be stopped or diverted by transitory remedies nor are they likely to be much influences by other current problems. I do not know that our industry can or will have much to do with these great underlying pressures but as to our ability to meet the Russian problem and as to setting an example of true leadership for the world to see, I believe we can have a part.”

Packard takes the first issue – Russia and tells of his trip there a year previously. He talks of the lack of  highways, apartments with no outlets for electric appliances, few automobiles or trucks. He says “I did not see one single electronic device in Russia which represented an advance over what we have in this country….”He tells of visiting Russian schools and a fourth year physics class where not a single student knew Ohm’s law.

 

Packard concludes the Russians are “…masters at showmanship and facade…”

“I am sure we in this country do not yet understand the true nature of Russia and communism. We overestimate her strength and perhaps misjudge here weakness.”

 

“If we have failed to understand and have underestimated the nature of our chief adversary, I think also we have failed to understand the great strength, both physical and moral, which is America. In this regard, I think it is useful to review some of the characteristics of our own industry which have given it strength and which make it an outstanding example of the operation of our free enterprise system.”

 

Packard describes his tour through the exhibits at WESCON and notes the many new products that were developed by very small firms – an example of the dynamic free enterprise system at work. He feels that the free exchange of ideas “has been an important factor in the management success of many of the firms here this week.”

 

“Being inhabited by young, well-trained, enthusiastic and ambitious people, the electronics industry holds examples of the best thinking in professional management and evidence of the highest ethics in business practice. We not only provide employment in our industry for about two million men and women, but we provide the best of jobs and working conditions for them We understand, I think quite fully, that people are more important than money in the electronic business.”

 

Packard feels preserving these important strengths is a serious problem. He speaks of the “growing trend toward mergers and acquisitions  – spurred by the attraction of the exorbitant price-to-earnings rations which the investment community has generated out of their enthusiasm for our performance. There is no evidence …to indicate our industry is any stronger as a result of these mergers and acquisitions.”

 

Packard feels “we must as an industry resist the pressures of governmental control with all our might. He recognizes this is difficult when the industry depends on government for such a large portion of its business. “It should be abundantly clear, however, that arbitrary rules generated by governmental bureaucracy are not necessarily going to bring about better reliability in our products not progress in any other area of our affairs. If we follow the lead of those in government who say that it is more important to limit profits than it is to produce an economical product of highest quality, we will find ourselves heading straight down the socialist road to the camp of communism.”

 

Packard turns to education and states that “We must put more effort into improving the educational system in this country. …Our industry derives its great strength from the large numbers of capable, highly educated people we employ. We must give commensurate support to the source of this strength.”

 

In this election year, Packard says we should encourage people  to learn about the issues and candidates and to select people who understand that our country cannot be strengthened by spreading the wealth, but only by enabling each person to do a better and more efficient job in his own work.

 

During the two decades that the United States has held a position of leadership in the world, this leadership has come not from aggressive action, nor at the expense of people, but as a result of the basic strengths which have been generated within our unique system of freedom and democracy….In these same two decades our electronic industry has grown from a small, insignificant factor in our economy to one of the greatest industries of our nation, and we have had a very important part in helping our country achieve this world leadership.”

 

Packard asks the question “Will history record that the American dream of equality of opportunity, of justice for all and of the supreme importance of the individual has been permanently established for all future mankind”

 

And he answers it saying:  “This question must be answered in the right way by each of us as individuals. It must be the conviction of the majority of all the people. We must give the right answer–Nothing can be more important.”

 

8/1/60, Copy of  invitation to the WEMA luncheon to hear Packard’s talk.

8/24/60, Printed copy of above speech in pamphlet form.

8/24/60, Typewritten summary of this speech

Undated, typewritten letter from Ray Wilbur, Personnel Director, to all employees of HP sending them a copy of the speech.

July/August, Issue of the WEMA Westerner publication containing an article about Packard’s forthcoming talk.

August, Clipping from WESCON NEWS telling of Packard’s forthcoming talk.

8/5/60, Clipping from Los Angeles Times newspaper telling of Packard’s forthcoming speech.

8/24/60, Clipping from Palo Alto Times newspaper,  telling of  Packard’s having received the “Western Electronic Medal of Achievement”  at WEMA luncheon where he was principal speaker.

Undated, Printed note of congratulations from Manpower Inc. attaching newspaper clipping covering award presentation.

 

8/25/60, Letter to Packard from Thomas B. Drummond of  Kidder, Peabody & Company requesting a copy of the speech.

8/25/60, Newspaper clipping from Electronic News covering WEMA speech.

8/25/60, Letter to Packard from Paul E. Hoover Congratulation Packard on award.

 

8/25/60, Letter to Packard from President J. E. Wallace Sterling, of Stanford congratulations Packard on the award.

8/26/60, Letter to Packard from Tully C. Knoles of Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce offering congratulations on the award.

 

8/26/60, Letter to Packard from Charles J. Marsh of Stevenson, Jordan & Harrison, Inc. offering congratulations on the award and requesting a copy of the speech.

September, 1960, Two pages from Hughes, Engineering Division publication covering

Packard’s speech.

9/7/60, Letter to Packard from S. H. Bellue of Osborne Electronic Sales Corp. saying that he is sending to radios to Packard as they discussed.

9/9/60, Letter to Packard from Ernest C. Arbuckle of Stanford, offering congratulations on award. Packard has written a note on the letter telling his secretary to send Arbuckle a copy of the talk.

10/5/60, Letter to Packard from John T. Hill of  j. t. hill company, asking for 100 reprints of Packard’s speech to distribute to his employees. A penciled note on the letter says “sent 10/7”

10/4/60, Letter to Packard from M. R. Lynn, Manager Fabrication Department, Ampex Data Products, saying he received a copy of Packard_s speech from his management. H says he is a newcomer to the electronics industry and he is proud to know that there are leaders who know the broad picture.

10/4/60, Letter to Packard from Carl W. Lawrence of  radio station KGEI in Belmont, CA. He congratulates Packard on his speech and encloses the script of a program their is beaming to Latin America discussing the threat from communism.

10/10/60, copy of letter from Packard to  Carl Lawrence saying he had read the script and that he is sure they are doing an important job with these programs.

9/27/60, Letter to Packard from R. H. Owens of Hughes Aircraft Company, congratulating Packard on the speech and enclosing a copy of a report he had sent to his management discussing the threat of communism.

10/10/60, Copy of a letter from Packard to R. H. Owens at Hughes Aircraft thanking him for his letter of September 27 and adding that he would enjoy discussing the subject further with Mr. Owens at a mutually satisfactory time.

 

10/10/60, Letter to Packard from Richard M. Leonard of the Law Offices of Leonard & Dole telling Packard he admires his “good sense and clarity of statement”.

10/20/60, Letter to Packard from Charles Davis office manager at Electro Scientific Industries Inc. enclosing an article describing a TV program sponsored by Bell and Howell.

10/11/60, Letter to Packard from James C. Skinner, President Thomas & Skinner, Inc. requesting permission to quote a statement in Packard’s speech concerning the need for companies to support private colleges and universities, and requesting additional copies of the talk.

10/24/60, Copy of letter from Packard to James C. Skinner sending additional copies of the talk and giving permission to use the quote as he requested.

 

 

 

Box 2, Folder 44 – General Speeches

 

No Date 1960, The Dimensions of the Executive Job, No Place Listed

 

Outline of talk handwritten by Packard

1. The Executive – The Administrator

The Manager – Management

Management – Getting things done through people.

2. History

Management, Administrator came early – Mesopotamia, China, Rome

Highly Authoritarian

Religion

Military

Roman Guilds

3. Beginnings of Modern Management

Frederick W. Taylor

Systematic approach

Scientific Management

Organization & Control

Classifications

1. Technical – production

2. Commercial – selling

3. Financial – use of capital

4. Security – protection of assets

5. Accounting – stock taking, costing

6. Managerial – planning, organizing, control

 

These concepts are the basis for most management today.

In recent years there has been a change, a broader view of management.

 

What are the objectives of management

1. To make a profit for owners.

To meet plan and budget directed from higher authority.

2. To make the activity or organization best serve society.

1. To make a contribution as an organization.

2. To serve the balanced interest of all parties involved -Owners                              Customers, employees, and public at large

Management is becoming, and should become, a profession.

Profession

1. Practitioners who are free and responsible and who establish standards of performance through personal integrity, dedication and courage.

2. Practitioners who are primarily dedicated to serving fellow man. g                       generally requires years of learning and continual learning.

The elements of management

1. Planning

Objectives

Policies

Procedures

Schedules, budgets

2. Organizing

Grouping of work

Delegation of work

3. Coordinating

Balancing

Integrating

4. Motivating

Communication – understanding

Inspiring – generating enthusiasm

Teaching and coaching

Participation

Appraisal

5. Controlling

Setting standards of performance

Evaluation of performance

Feedback of performance to all people

 

The Concept of Responsibility and Authority

Responsibility

You have responsibility when you know what is expected of you by your                         superiors.

You delegate responsibility when your subordinates know what is expected                       of them.

Planning – What are the objectives

Communications – Does the other person really understand.

Delegation in detail

Delegation by objective

Only when everyone on the management team understands                          the basic and overall objectives of the organization can he                             fully discharge his responsibility.

Areas of responsibility are commonly defined but always overlap – Teamwork back up the line.

 

Authority

Authority by status – religion, slave, military

Authority by law or regulation

Authority by knowledge or respect

An organization is developed to its full capacity only when each member is using his full capability in cooperation with every other member toward the common objectives.

 

Some general observations

The specialist vs. the manager

When a man does a good job of management he does it only because he stops being a specialist and becomes a manager.

There is a vast body of knowledge available -attitudes, principles, skills      and tools.

There is no more reason to expect men in management to become prepared and to keep informed without organized and methodical effort than for men in       any other profession, art or service.

 

Box 1. Folder 5 – Stanford

 

February 1960, Stanford’s National Visibility, Stanford Conference, Various locations

 

2/60  Typewritten speech with notations by Packard.

 

Packard notes that 1959 marked the   tenth anniversary of Dr. Wallace Sterling’s tenure as president; “we reviewed some of the things which have been accomplished during these ten years.” This progress has continued and he wants to give a “brief report”

 

On finances – operating budget for 1959-1960 just over $23 million, up from $20 the year before. Expenditures will be covered by income. 1959  “has seen the largest program of plant additions in the history of the University — including the new $16,000,000 Stanford Medical Center — the construction of the Applied Electronics Laboratory — the Gillfillan Wing of the Electronic Research Laboratory — a project to house married students — a new book store and post office —  the renovation of Encina Hall for office and research programs — and the rehabilitation of several of the old buildings in the quad.”  Packard lists several more projects for which planning and architectural work has begun: a new Chemistry building, a new Physics building, a new housing program for undergraduate men, and “perhaps most important of all — we are working on plans for a new, very urgently needed, Undergraduate Library…”

Packard says “Gifts and grants to Stanford reached a new all-time high of $22,261,809 last year…second only to Harvard” But Packard points out that buildings and money do not make a university. “Therefore, I would like to take a few minutes to report on the sine qua non — the faculty and students. ” “Stanford in Italy” and “Stanford in France” programs have been authorized for undergraduates, along the line of the “Stanford in Germany” pattern. “It will now be possible for one-third of the students to study in Europe for two quarters some time during their four undergraduate years. “New, distinguished professors have been brought to the campus.

 

“During the year, the magnitude and scope of  Research at Stanford has continued to increase. And  he gives several examples. “So — we are looking at total research effort at the University measured by over $12,000,000 of government and foundation support.”

 

“As one reviews the progress of the past year — the increase in Stanford’s National Visibility shows up in every area. :last year Stanford ranked third in the nation as the choice of Undergraduate Scholarship Winners in the National Merit foundation program. Stanford was fourth in 1958, fifth in 1957 and eighth in 1956 (the year the program started). Stanford was second to Harvard in the General Motors National scholarship competition. The new Medical School has attracted attention throughout the country….”  “Our Physics Department was singled out by the President of the United States for possible location of a two-mile long electron accelerator to cost over $100,000,000. Our Mathematics-Statistics Laboratory is recognized as one of the two or three leading centers in the country in the field of mathematical analysis. The law School in the last ten years has had seven of its graduates selected as clerks to Supreme Court Justices.”

 

“In recent years, Stanford Faculty have received five Nobel Prizes, before WW II we never had, nor could aspire to, even one such honor. In 1939 we had three professors who were members of the National Academy of Sciences — today we have fourteen.”  Packard says “…we have raised our sights in recruiting faculty.  In the past three years — we have appointed three new faculty members who were already members of the National Academy sciences — this had never happened in the history of the University before 1957.”

 

Packard tells of Stanford having …”been selected to operate an Institute for High school Teachers of Chemistry and mathematics with a grant…from the National Science Foundation.”  He goes on to say that “Stanford is developing nationwide influence in the teaching of languages — Slavic, German, French, and Spanish.” “Two out of the nine U.S. scientists at the recent Geneva Technical talks on how to detect high altitude nuclear explosions were Stanford Professors.”

 

“There are many, many more examples to substantiate clearly and decisively the conclusion that Stanford, both at the Undergraduate and at the Graduate level, has changed from a respected but fundamentally regional University to a great national institution of rapidly growing stature.”

 

Packard points out that “…these accomplishments bring us to the realization that Stanford has become an important national asset and we as its alumnae have the responsibility to assure the nation that the capabilities of Stanford in its educational leadership, in its capacity for research, and its great wealth of accumulated knowledge are fully utilized to strengthen our country and our civilization in the troubled years which lie ahead. To discuss the future of Stanford properly we must set the stage by considering some of the things which have happened in the past and make some estimate for the decades ahead.”

 

He begins by reminding the audience of some of the things that have happened in the first half of the Twentieth Century. He speaks of the “…universal use of  the telephone since Stanford was founded,” and describes how the “transmission of thought and ideas has become almost instantaneous and certainly international.” Going on Packard says “physical mobility has increased with equal rapidity. “…the development of the jet has brought Stanford closer to London, Paris, Berlin and Rome…than it was to Chicago when I was a student. No one doubts for a minute that we will put a man in space in a year or so.”

 

“These things are but the external evidences of the tremendous accumulation of knowledge which is going on in the world. such progress is impossible until envisioned by man — until the techniques and methods are thoroughly understood. Only when we have the knowledge can it be translated by handicraft into reality.”

 

Packard tells of the thousands of professional journals, articles and scientific books issued in the preceding year. He says that “In my own field of electronic engineering — when I started at Stanford in 1930, there had hardly been a dozen books published on the subject. Today there are many thousands.”

 

Packard tells of how “…only two decades ago the United States was a country virtually isolated from world affairs — both in thought and association.  Today     we are in a position of world leadership, enmeshed in a life or death struggle with Russia. In the last three years we have certainly been rudely awakened and we clearly see it will take the maximum of our energy and ability to maintain our position of leadership and it will not be maintained through any bargain with Providence. This is the environment in which our University must take a position leadership.”

 

“Above all” Packard says, “Stanford must stand for the preservation of freedom. It is the fundamental American concept — and in fact the basic tenet of the entire Western World — that all great accomplishment in the world has been made and will continue to be made by individual men working in an atmosphere of freedom, fighting the tyranny which is continually attempting to destroy freedom and dignity for the individual person.”

 

Looking ahead Packard says “The second half of the Twentieth century may well turn out to be the most critical period in the history of the world. Certainly it is likely to be the most critical in the history of our nation and Western Civilization.

We face an explosion of population as well of knowledge….The boys and girls who choose Stanford will have the opportunity to keep up with this explosion of knowledge. They will know and work with professors exploring on the very frontiers of knowledge in many areas.”

 

Packard tells how Stanford’s influence is extending into the international area:…”We recently received $3,500,000 from the Ford Foundation to establish an International center at Stanford for educating teachers of Business Administration from foreign countries….In the past year or two, many important national corporations have come to recognize the tremendously important contribution made to all higher education by the great private universities….The Chase Manhattan Bank of New York recently awarded Stanford along with nine other first level privately supported universities — a grant of $10,000 a year for five years because Stanford is  “Widely recognized as having been outstanding over the years as a center of learning!”….As your trustees,  your administrators and your faculty attempt to guide Stanford toward its proper future destiny — there naturally will be many practical problems: admissions, social standards, athletics.”

 

Packard says he wants to say a few words about athletics, “lest you leave the room with the idea there is no place at Stanford for anything except intellectual achievement. ….”when we talk about leadership for today, we are talking about men and women with drive, energy, motivation, judgment and wisdom — in addition to intellectual capability. these qualities are developed on the athletic field as well as in all kinds of extra-curricular activities.”  “I am confident we can find enough good football players who are also good students to give our adversaries a better run for their money in the future than we have in the past.” “Last year, out of 10 Phi Beta Kappas in the Pacific Coast Conference, 6 were from Stanford.”

 

In closing Packard says he wants to remind “… you all that we have undertaken a monumental challenge, that your trustees, your president, your administrators, and your faculty are working together with full understanding of the magnitude of the job to be done. We are tremendously grateful for the devoted work of the alumnae Association, the Stanford Clubs, the Stanford Associated and all of the many individual friends and alumni who have helped to make the past progress possible.  We know we can count on all of you in the future.”

 

2/5/60 Typewritten draft of above speech with notations

2/28/60 Typewritten speech given by President Wallace Sterling, with notations

 

 

Box 1, Folder 6 – Stanford

 

April 29, 1960,  Stanford Luncheon, Waldorf Astoria Group, New York

 

4/29/60 Typewritten speech made before this group introducing Herbert Hoover and Stanford President Wallace Sterling.

Packard welcomes the attendees and expresses the hope they are there “because you share with us the belief that higher education is a very important source of strength for our nation. We who are working for Stanford believe also that the privately supported- and independent universities have a special position of leadership to fulfill for higher education. This is in no way to depreciate the crucial role of the tax supported schools and universities for, particularly in the West, they must accept the burden of accommodating the numbers.”

 

Packard goes on to say that Stanford’s “problem and objective is to provide leadership and education – in research – and in the preservation of that freedom which is the foundation of strength for our nation and our Western Civilization” In pursuit of these objectives Packard says Stanford has made great progress in the past years and he quotes one observer as saying Stanford has grown from being a respected regional university to a great national institution.

 

Such progress Stanford has made “comes from the enthusiastic help from many people – Alumni – friends – Foundations and corporations as well as from the devoted and untiring work of our Professors and administrative people.” Packard continues “We are here today to express our appreciation to you for the help you and your colleagues along the Eastern Seaboard have given us in this venture. Packard says those at Stanford are aware that this help “carries with it the obligation and opportunity for Stanford to work shoulder to shoulder with all of the other great educational institutions in our nation.”

 

Packard goes on to introduce Herbert Hoover saying that “We are delighted to have with us today one of the most distinguished citizens of our country and the most famous son of our university. Packard says this person’s “most important contribution to Stanford and perhaps to our country as well is the institution which bears his name and which is located on our campus in Palo Alto. This is the largest and most important collection of documents in the world relating to the events and developments which have influenced, in fact made, the history of the twentieth century.” Packard proceeds to introduce  Honorable Herbert Hoover.

 

None of Mr. Hoover’s comments that day are a part of this document, but apparently, following Mr. Hoover’s words,  Packard introduced the President of Stanford, Wallace Sterling, saying Stanford “is indeed fortunate to have as its President one of the great leaders of higher education…..Our faculty, our students, our Alumni, and our Trustees are indeed proud to have as our leader a man who has measured up so well.”

Box 1, Folder 7 – Stanford

2/?/60 Typewritten copy of speech titled “Stanford’s National Visibility” given by Dave Packard. See folder February 1960 of this title for review of talk.

 

2/11/60 Typewritten letter from Carroll E. Bradberry (of the firm Carroll  E.. Bradberry & .Associates, consulting Engineers) to David Packard saying that he is attaching “a draft of a resume of your speech which I will include in a letter to all our alumni.” He asks Packard to make any changes and return. The resume referred to is quoted below:

 

“A good number were able to turn out for the Bay Area kickoff banquet, at which David Packard’s address highlighted the future importance of the fraternity system. Mr. Packard noted the growing prestige of the university in terms of the distinction of its faculty and its popularity among National Merit scholarship winners. This increasing prestige of the university, he said, coupled with the explosion in college application statistics, gives Stanford a unique opportunity to increase the quality of its undergraduate programs. Mr. Packard stated this in terms of training the “leaders of the last two decades of the twentieth century” and noted particularly that his definition of leadership includes more than academic excellence. Furthermore, the desirable social attitudes shown in the past to be best developed in fraternities are to be continued and encouraged and he emphasized the new opportunity for leadership which the fraternities will have in the years ahead. In conclusion, the President of the Stanford Board of Trustees stressed the importance of the fraternity housing program to Stanford and urged all alumni to give it their financial support.

 

Undated typewritten speech titled “Stanford’s future Role in the West.”  The speaker is not known, but the copy contains several notations by Packard, which appear to be points he intended to bring out himself.

 

Speech by unknown speaker on above subject. This is a review of Stanford’s importance in the West and its educational competition in California, mainly the University of California system. Packard’s notes are apparently a listing of a few points he wished to bring out following the above speaker and refer to the importance of financial support.

 

8/8/60 Typewritten letter to Packard from J. F. Oliphant, President, Faculty Club, inviting Packard to speak to members of the Club on Oct. 7, 1960.

8/22/60 Copy of typewritten letter from Packard to J. F. Oliphant. Packard says he cannot make the 10/7/60 date but would be pleased to join them later in the fall.

8/30/60 Typewritten letter to Packard from J. F. Oliphant, President, Faculty Club, saying he will write Packard later to arrange a date.

11/28/60 Typewritten letter to Packard from J. F. Oliphant. confirming the date of January 6, 1961 for Packard to address the club.

12/11/60 Typewritten letter to Packard from William Bark, Professor of Medieval History.

The date on this letter is apparently in error because it refers to comments made by Packard in his speech of 1/6/61 to the Faculty Club [see above]. Professor Back responds to Packard’s comments concerning Professor Baran and gives some possible reasons why no one challenged Prof. Baran. Professor Bark refers to an attached letter [not included in this folder] concerning  Mr. Liu’s faculty appointment.

Box 1, Folder 18 – HP Management

 

January 29, 1960, Fourth Annual Management Conference, Sonoma

 

1/29/60, The major document in this folder is the usual bound binder with charts and handouts for the conference. First is a two page memorandum from Dave Packard:

Packard talks about the first management conference in February 1957 when shipments in 1956 were $20,000,000 and profits were good. Then here they are to review the year 1959 when sales are $50,000,000 and profits are good.

 

Packard  says they have implemented many things discussed in prior conferences well, but some things have not been done. He says he wants to discuss these things this year. “This weekend we are going to spend most of our time considering what the future holds for us.” He says that many thought the company would never get over $50,000,000 in sales – yet here they are in only four years. “It seems to me”, he says, “that the first order of business should be to attempt to get a better fix on the long range opportunities for us — what kind of problems these opportunities might bring; and from this base move on during the year to make the detail management decisions needed to implement our future.”

 

Packard says they will begin by “reviewing the economic environment in which we are likely to find ourselves in the next decade … [and] explore how we think HP will fit into this environment…”

 

Another document in the binder which is of particular interest is a several page listing of HP corporate objectives with preface by Packard and comments by him on the relative importance of each.

 

3/30/60 A 23 page document titled “David Packard’s Report on the 1960 Sonoma Conference to Supervisors and Management.”

 

This is an address, by Packard, a group a HP supervisors who were not at the conference. Going through a slide show Packard reviews sales growth, by product type, over several years. Following this he shows how profits per share have increased. He sees a substantial growth in the company over the past few years.

 

Packard describes the geographical growth of the company and its association with Moseley, Boonton Radio, Geneva, Boblingen. At the conference they tried to make some projections to reflect these changes. Following Ernie Arbuckle’s  projection of Gross National Product, population growth and growth of per capita income, they looked at the projected growth of the electronic business.

 

Packard then analyzes HP share of the market for various product groups. Projecting ahead they came up with estimated sales for HP in 1964 of $64,000,000. Then they moved on to project what this growth would mean in terms of people, facilities and dollars. They projected a total of 9674 people needed by 1969. As to construction, they concluded it would be better to grow in different areas than just in Palo Alto.

 

Packard discusses the deliberations at the conference on financial matters and the question as to whether the policy of financing their growth internally through profits would support the growth they had projected. They concluded it would.

 

Packard then turns to the corporate objectives  and the discussions at the conference about the ability of these to hold up to the scale of growth they foresee. They concluded that “the guides we have used through the years should continue to be our guide for the future.”

 

Regarding personnel Packard sees four things they shall have to do better than in the past: selection – get more and better people; work harder at     developing the people we have; evaluate their performance; supervisors must work hard to help their people advance and grow.

Lastly this folder contains  a handwritten outline of what may have been a talk on Foreign Markets. The writer is not indicated. It was not Packard.

 

1/13/60, Letter to Packard from James H. Healey, Director, Management and Business Services, enclosing a reproduction of the remarks made by Packard at an AMA Management Seminar. The typewritten text is titled: Toward a Common Code of Business Ethics.

 

 

In this speech Packard says American business men are “well on the way” to develop a code of ethics for business.  He sees two forces that work against manager’s ability to operate freely – one is Communism. Packard says, “At this point in history, we must face the fact that American business has somehow not measured up in the eyes of the world.”

 

Packard sees three ways by which those who hold power are prevented from abusing it: higher authority (government), an opposing power (unions), and third a self imposed code of ethics. He sees the development of a code of ethics as “the greatest challenge now confronting management.”

 

Packard describes four tenets which have been suggested by business leaders in recent years, and which “might fit into such a code:”

 

1. To manage our business enterprises with the primary objective of making a contribution to society.

 

2.  To recognize the dignity and personal worth of every employee

 

3.  To recognize our responsibility to society in general.

 

1. To develop and encourage a better understanding of the nature of profit.

 

Box 1, Folder 35D – HP Management

Packard feels management is on trial. “It is my hope,” he says, “that American management will continue to put more emphasis on the why of business and more effort into the development of a common code of business ethics. Such a code must be based upon the attainment of a high objective—the preservation of our liberty as managers—and it must be acceptable to the vast majority of business managers if this objective is to be achieved.

 

“The Russians have demonstrated that they can produce sputniks without profits and without liberty. We stand on trial before the world to prove that we can produce sputniks and all of the goods and services necessary for a better life, as well—with profits and with liberty.”