Box 2, Folder 34 – General Speeches
October 5, 1959, Education in Russia, Palo Alto High School, Palo Alto
10/5/59, Typewritten “summary” of Packard’s speech at the High School describing his trip to Russia with a group of businessmen to talk about improving trade relations. This summary was evidently prepared by the High School staff and copies provided to Packard’s office.
Packard says it was somewhat difficult to obtain a comprehensive view of Russian education during their two week visit. They saw the usual sights he explains, as well as four factories and seeing manufacturing techniques.
He describes a visit to a secondary school in Leningrad which was attended by children from about 7 to 17 years old. They saw nurseries for pre-school children in every factory and housing development. Graduates of secondary schools have these choices:
1. Go on to a university.
2. Go to a Teacher’s school which is general-none of the teachers came from a university.
3. Go to a Medical School.
4. Go to a vocational school
In the secondary school children wear uniforms and buy their own books.
Packard went on to describe the curriculum which contains much arithmetic, science and foreign languages. Science labs were adequate.
The main measure of grading is given at two points: A comprehensive examination at the end of the seventh year when compulsory education ends. At the end of the tenth year competitive examinations last for about a week and determine which students may go on to university, to professional training and to work.
Many teachers work at a regular job too since they are usually finished teaching by noon. Teachers teach 24 hours per six day week.
There are 39 universities in Russia – first class institutions. The university of Moscow has the most expensive buildings in the country. The dormitories have 15-20 rooms, a kitchen and a nice recreation room. There is no tuition and students receive an allowance of 300 to 450 rubles a month. University professors are among the highest paid people in the country.
Some impressions Packard gives:
1. A tremendous emphasis on education, best buildings, excellent pay for professors.
2. Emphasis of science, engineering and foreign language.
3. Tremendous competition in their educational system.
Some additional personal observations from Packard:
1. A country of unbelievable contrasts, poor construction of buildings and roads, contrasted with excellent educational facilities.
2. People work very hard, dedicated to their system.
Packard answered questions from his audience in Palo Alto. The last was “Because of the every strong competition between Russia and us, are there ideas or suggestions whereby we can improve our system to meet their challenge?
Packard’s answer: “continue to support the school district and help in every way you can. This applies to both public schools and universities. There is not anything in our schools that some time, effort and money will not correct.”
Undated, A note to Mrs. Saxon (Packard’s secretary) form Janet Mitchell to the High School sending two copies of their summary of Packard’s talk on Russia, with the promise of sending 50 more.
Undated and unsigned, a note to Mrs. Mitchell thanking her for the 50 copies.
Box 2, Folder 35 – General Speeches
October 8, 1959, Personnel, The Heart of Management, Public Personnel Association Conference. San Francisco.
10/8/59, Copy typewritten speech by Packard: Personnel, The Heart of Management, with a few handwritten notes by Packard.
Packard says he is going to discuss the broader aspects of management for “I believe it is of great importance for any manager to have and understand the broad underlying objectives of his job.” He goes on to say that he subscribes to the management approach “which I call “Management of Objective” as opposed to “Management by Control”. He contrasts this freedom to work “without rigid and extensive direction and control from the TOP” to the “system of management of the military type where each person is assigned – and expected to do – a specific job, precisely as he is told and without the need to know much or anything about the overall objective of the organization”
Packard says Management by Objective “is the very essence of free enterprise. It is what causes small business units to be inherently more efficient than large business units, when they are under managers of equal ability in each case.” He sees many large organizations moving in that direction “in an attempt to recapture the efficiency of a small business.”
Packard says he is aware that there are many special problems in public administration not present in private business administration. The legislative system builds safeguards which provide controls which seem frustrating to a person in a private enterprise. “I am aware too that many people are working for more centralization, for more policies and more details as well, to be decided at the highest level – preferably by Washington.” …”Unfortunately, many yield to these pressures under the false impression that concentration of administrative power in higher authority will also make administration more efficient.”
“One cannot dispute the fact that the number of people under public administration is increasing and increasing rapidly in many areas. For those of us who believe that the government – at all levels – should do only those things which clearly cannot be done by private enterprise – this trend is disturbing.”
In spite of these trends, Packard sees the people in public administration doing a very important job. “Your job is increasing in importance and we should therefore place great emphasis on how public administration can best be accomplished.” He sees it as possible and desirable to apply the principles of management by objectives to public administration.
Packard says he recently returned from a trip to Russia and many in this country are thinking more about their system and trying to learn more about it. H takes a few minutes to draw some comparisons between their management techniques and ours.. “First. they have moved a long way from the basic philosophy of communism – if indeed they ever had it. there is no application of the principle expressed as “from each according to his ability – to each according to his need”. The people do not own anything – it is all owned by the State.”
“They have the most highly centralized system imaginable. the government bureaus control everything – they set wages, working hours, rent, prices, work quotas for factories.” However, Packard says they have adopted some techniques from the capitalist system in order to make their administration more efficient.” – Pay ranges for some jobs to encourage and reward performance and their ranges are broader than is usual here.
“The administrator of a Russian factory has the responsibility of providing nurseries for the children of working mothers. Housing, mass apartment housing, for the workers is also his responsibility and he can use this authority to distribute apartments to individuals and this encourage and reward performance where it will improve the efficiency of his administrative unit”
Russia also has a system of group incentives. “If the factory”, Packard observes, exceeds its quota – the employees receive a bonus which may be as much as 100% of base salary and seemed to average at least 30% in most of the cases I encountered.” Public recognition is another incentive they use.
“It is the observation of almost everyone who visits Russia that the people there work hard and have a religious devotion to their cause. In other words, a brad well accepted common objective – which is to work for a better life for their government as well as for the people.”
In spite of that Packard sees much evidence of great inefficiency. “People waiting around for someone else to make a decision. Two people doing the job of one – outdated tools and methods on many jobs. ….Finally, you sense that although they have the most highly organized and most highly centralized and controlled system of management that can be conceived, although they have used nearly every technique in our book – they have failed completely to use the most important of all – that of recognizing the individual as a person important for his own sake.”
“This now”, Packard says, “brings us to the very heart of the problem. What is the real purpose of an organization of people. Is the purpose of the private enterprise factory simply to make a profit for its owners – is the only purpose of a highway department to build and maintain highways – the fire department to be the most efficient organization of highly disciplined and highly trained people ready to put out the fir at the sound of the gong? Certainly, one of the proper objectives of management is to develop an organization to do these specific tasks for which it is designated. It is the function of the personnel man to obtain the people – and to assist management in their development, growth and direction – to help in every way in the overall objectives of the organization.”
“In other words, – we can say that an important purpose of an organization is to serve society. But if we stop here – there is no way in the world to detect such an organization in America from an organization in communist Russia. The organizations are manned with highly trained people. their managers are capable. they use techniques which appear to be as good as our best. they are dedicated to serve society – which they call the people.”
“But there is a difference – a difference so important that it is unbelievable we overlook it so often. the difference is that in America – each individual is a person of infinite worth. He is no different during the eight hours a day he is working in your organization than he is in his home – or in his church…..So ladies and gentlemen — as you go home from this conference to put into effect the things you have learned here to make your organization more efficient – remember that we are engaged in a struggle to the death with this malignant social disease called communism. Remind yourself of the nature of the struggle. the struggle is not just capitalism vs. dictatorship as a political system – it is something far more important – as important as such considerations may be.
“The real question is the person vs. the people. Remind yourself that the leaders of Communism have never hesitated to strike down the individual ruthlessly – when he stood in the way of alleged progress of the people. When the Hungarians were so bold as to express themselves, they were ruthlessly shot down. Even the leader who shows sign of deviation – deviation from blind support of the Communist State is either shot or sent to Siberia. Every person knows he is under continual surveillance of the police watching him to make sure he shows no expression of individuality. As you travel in Russia – you can sense this very strongly. The people are friendly but they are afraid.
….So the real question involved is this – are we, in our management philosophy and in our personnel administration — going to work to preserve the concept that the individual in our organization is a person of infinite worth. That the organization exists to serve the individual as well as to serve society. To the extent you are able to keep this as one of your basic objectives – you will insure for your organization that efficiency which comes only from enthusiastic people using their energy and their imagination in an atmosphere of freedom – working for a common objective.
….This course provides greater incentives for people at all levels, it will attract more capable people to your ranks. Most important of all – you will do much to strengthen the cause of personal freedom throughout the world – if you make sure it is encouraged within your own organization.”
Box 1, Folder 4 – Stanford
March 7/8, 1959, Stanford in the Space Age, Stanford Conferences, Seattle/Portland
3/8/59, Copy of typewritten speech.
Packard starts out saying he would like to “give his personal impressions of Stanford today and how it seems to compare with 25 years ago”. He adds that if his impressions differ from that of a previous speaker, he asks his audience to remember that his perceptions dim with age.
Packard says “My first impression…is that the students are very young.” However, he views them as a “very mature, serious, hard-working group of boys and girls.” He says there are about 8400 of them and “they are more interested in politics — they are more interested in international affairs and they are more religious — evidenced by their attendance at chapel and community churches…”
“A much larger portion of the boys and girls are working for degrees in science and Engineering. Foreign languages have taken a great upsurge. Packard sees juniors and seniors taking courses that were available only to graduate students 20 years previous. He says romance is taken more seriously “as evidenced by the fact that we(Stanford) is spending this year $3 million to build apartments to ones renovated on the inside. New dormitories, libraries and music rooms — all far better than 20-25 years ago.
Packard describes some of the “exciting” things going on inside the buildings such as in electronics, physics, geology. In Germany, 60 Stanford students have been transplanted for two quarters to facilitate their learning the language. “Every where you turn you see a great sense of urgency and enthusiasm. Searching for new answers — seeking new knowledge and seeking to understand it.” Packard feels the quality of Stanford’s educational program and its reputation among scholars has grown tremendously.
Packard continues , saying” “In the field of electrical engineering, Stanford easily ranks as on of the top two or three universities in the country…in several special areas …clearly first”. Stanford is among the best 5 or 6 in the country in physics according to Packard, and medicine provides “one of the outstanding activities in the country”. “The great heart of Stanford is its program in humanities, … we are working hard to develop additional strength and eminence in this important program.”
Summing up, Packard says “If we look at the breadth of the program at Stanford and at the kind of job being done there, we can say without qualification that Stanford ranks far and away as the greatest privately supported university in the western two-thirds of the United States,…and would easily rank as one of the ten greatest universities in the United States”
Leaving his description of academic activities at Stanford Packard turns to fundraising and “where we get the money to do all of these things” He says that when he started at Stanford in 1930 “the tuition was reasonable and everyone knew that Stanford had such a large endowment that it would never have any financial worries.” Stanford, indeed, “did have the largest endowment of any university in the country when it was founded.:, he states. But, “by 1930 it was no longer the first and the endowment was nowhere near adequate to operate the university even then.”
Packard says the endowment now provides only 15% of the money needed to meet the annual budget and “To stretch our resources to provide even 15% of our budget has required a very important program of self-help, that is our :and Land Development Program..”(See also folder April 24, 1956 Land Development Program ) “Land which, in the opinion of the Board, is not needed for academic use is being leased, generally for a 99-year term..” Packard explains that .some of the land s leases to industrial concerns, …some for a shopping center,… and some for residential purposes. “The university has received $5,800,000 for the land leases, exclusive of the shopping center. these funds provided income at the current investment rate of about $227,000 per year.” He adds that “the shopping provides an annual income net of expenses of about $550,000 per year” In total, ” the Land Development Program is providing the University with a total income of about $600,000 a year.” He says “the can express the value of the shopping Center to the University as being equivalent to $14 million added to the University endowment.” While “the Land Development Program has been tremendously important to Stanford….it provides less than $600,000 per year against a $19 million budget.” “In other words,….only about 3% of our annual requirement to operate Stanford”
Packard discusses tuition at some length. “This year we will receive a little over $8 million for more than 40% of our budget requirements, from tuition and fees.” He points out that “This year tuition has gone up to a little over $1000 per year…compared to $336 twenty years ago…or about 3:1.” Packard provides some figures on the growth of discretionary income in the preceding twenty years, also about 3:1, and concludes that, “We should be able to conclude, then, that it is just as easy for the average person to pay tuition today at the present level as it was for him to pay the lower tuition in 1939.”
Packard says he has discussed only part of Stanford’s annual income. “The most important change in the last 20 years is the money we receive to support research activities.. In this year’s budge there is about $61/2 million — mostly from the government.” Such support provides “over 30% of the annual budget so…between tuition, research money from the government, and endowment income — we can account for about 90% we can account for about 90% of our annual budget” Packard says the other 10% “comes from gifts — gifts from alumni, gifts from parents, and gifts from friends, which is available to spend during the year to help pay our operating costs.” He says the “total gift support has gone from $7 million in 1956 to $22 million in 1957 — when we had the big drive for the medical school — to $11 million in 1958.” Packard talks about the Medical School as an example of the importance of gift support, and stresses that, “Despite the terrific magnitude of the financial problem – we at Stanford are not willing to allow this nor any other responsibility which has been traditionally shared by the privately supported and independent universities be turned over completely to the government.”
…”both research and education will become more expensive,… especially if we accept the challenge that Stanford must maintain and strengthen its position of leadership. We don’t like to increase tuition. We don’t propose to become dependent on government support. ” “Increased gift support for current requirements seems to be the only available way to minimize further tuition increases. Corporation support for private education is increasing. Business is permitted by law to contribute 5% of profit before taxes to education. The average contribution is much less than 1%. “Packard says if “business and industry would contribute just 1% of their profit before taxes…the financial problem of private and independent higher education in this country would largely be solved.”
Packard points to the tremendous scientific progress which as been made throughout the world, such as sputnik, and says ” “…these events have brought into closer focus the importance of higher education in our country.. Our system of freedom and democracy depends on an alert, intelligent group of individuals working in an atmosphere of freedom, with a common purpose as opposed to the communistic philosophy involving highly trained people, completely subservient to a central controlling authority.” we have learned that the communistic Russian system is not to be under-rated either in purpose or in capability. For our democratic free enterprise to successfully compete — and successfully compete it must in order to survive — requires the greatest possible effort in the education of our people. Education not only so they will have the skills and ability necessary to perform their jobs well — but also the broadest kind of education in order to strengthen the common purpose freely and logically developed from our Western heritage. This, then, is the challenge and purpose of higher education in the Space Age.
“In the past 20 yeas Stanford has risen to a position of national leadership among the institutions of higher learning in this country.” “this achievement …has been great to a large degree because it has been supported by an enthusiastic and loyal group of alumni.”
Packard ends saying “I hope also that you will leave this conference today with increased pride in your university and with the resolution to continue to work with us to help Stanford fulfill its important and proper destiny in the SPACE AGE.”
Several drafts evidently prepared in preparation for the above speech
1/28/59 Memo from Mary Beech, Activities Secretary of the Stanford alumni Association to all participants in the 1959 Stanford Conference Program. Location and speech titles are given. Packard is listed for
Sacramento, February 15, “Reflections on the Space Age”
Seattle, March 7, “Stanford in the Space Age”
Portland, March 8, “Stanford in the Space Age”
3/3/59 Letter from Peter C. Allen to Thomas P. Pike with a cc. to Packard. Letter refers to enclosed text of Packard’s forthcoming speech at Seattle and copies of Stanford Today which are not attached to this copy. An index of press releases is attached.
3/8/59 Program for the Stanford Conference at Portland.
Undated summary of endowment Monies for years 1947, 1952, and 1956.
Undated note listing tuition for various schools at Stanford for year 1938-39:
Business School $130.00/qtr.
Medical School $115.00/qtr.
All other schools $100.00/qtr.
Plus approx. $35.00/year additional expenses
3 quarter = 1 year
Thus $335 to $390 approximately, compared to $1005 now.
Box 1, Folder 7 – Stanford
1/14/59 Speech by Packard, given in Los Angeles apparently to an audience of local company executives. Packard says that the Stanford Board of Trustees held its first meeting in southern California that day saying that holding the meeting here “was an expression that Stanford University shares with its great sister institutions the responsibility to provide the best that higher education has to offer for your children and your community.” Packard introduces honored guests which include several Presidents of universities in southern California.
Packard goes on to talk about the symbiotic relationship between Stanford and southern California. He says one third of Stanford’s alumni reside in the south, and that Stanford students who came from the south are 44 % of the students from the state. “Sending your finest boys and girls to the Stanford campus…is a challenging responsibility for us to meet.” Packard goes on to describe the General Studies program at Stanford and he says that “At Stanford we have graduate schools to train men and women in the professions, in Law, in Medicine, in engineering, in Education, in Business and in other fields as well.” He points out that “Many of the leaders in these professions in your community received their training in the graduate schools at Stanford.”
Packard talks of research activities at Stanford and points out that these have “greatly contributed to the progress of California. Hundreds of millions of dollars come into Southern California every year through your great aircraft and electronic companies to manufacture devices totally dependent on the Klystron tube developed in the department of Physics laboratories at Stanford a few years ago.” He points out that the Distant Early Warning (DEW) line built across the Arctic frontier to warn us in the event of an air attack “is possible because of a by-product of the Linear Accelerator research at Stanford.” Packard goes on with other examples of how southern California has benefited from activities at Stanford.
Packard then introduces Stanford President Dr. Wallace Sterling, who gives a speech. (Not attached) In conclusion, Packard points out that “Our country – and our way of life – are engaged in a deadly serious conflict with countries and people under Communist philosophy. Our universities have in the past, and will continue in the future, to be the main source of new scientific knowledge on which all of our technological progress depends, not only for the weapons for our protection but for all of the other material advances which do so much to demonstrate to the world the superiority of the American way of life.”
2/12/59 Typewritten speech by Dr. J. E. Wallace Sterling, President of Stanford University, on occasion of award to him of Distinguished Citizen Award of the Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce.
Dr. Sterling provides a “brief and uneven reminiscence of developments and forces that were being unleashed in the world three score and fourteen years ago, (Since 1885 when Stanford was founded), and turns to the local scene as it was then. There was “no town of Palo Alto, and there were no University buildings.” Sterling describes how Senator Stanford became concerned as to where students and faculty coming to the new school might find accommodations. He thought, “The little town of Mayfield might serve as a university town. But he imposed the condition that it should be dry.” This condition “would have involved the closing of a dozen or so Mayfield saloons. The residents of Mayfield found this condition uncongenial, so refused it.” Sterling goes on to describe how Senator Stanford managed to get alternate property in the area, which involved the communities of College Terrace, University Park, and which all ultimately became Palo Alto.
Dr. Sterling follows the development of both the university and the town and concludes with the thought he believes “…in these past three score and fourteen years, ways have been found to build on the foundations and hopes that were laid when Palo alto was a tiny hamlet and the University was untried and untested.”
5/11/59 Typed letter to Dave Packard from Professor Wallace Stegner, Department of English. The letter is quoted in its entirety:
“Dear Mr. Packard:
“I listened to your talk before the local chapter of the AAUP last Thursday evening with great interest, and many things that you said I was very pleased to hear. I share your optimism about Stanford’s future and at least some of your satisfaction with Stanford’s present. I do believe that this university is just getting the vision of greatness, thanks in considerable part to the present board and the present administration, and that it faces an incomparable opportunity for service to the community, to the nation, and to human learning. In particular, I was pleased to hear you say that the plans for development of the Sand Hill road area of Stanford land have been suspended for further study: quite seriously, many of us would give up other benefits, if necessary, to see Stanford preserve that land open and unmutilated in the midst of the ringworm suburbs. It is perhaps un-American to think that a four-lane highway is not necessarily better than a two-lane one, or that a population of four thousand per square mile is not necessarily better than half that. So be it. If it can preserve some of the character of the local landscape and the openness and expansiveness of what has hitherto been the Stanford community, I should say Stanford has the opportunity to be un-American in the very best sense of the term. Beauty does not ordinarily win out in a competition with the chance for dollars; it takes an institution of both integrity and vision to resist the short-term good for the long-term, and I am sure you will have the enthusiastic support of a very large portion of the faculty in your effort to save that hill land from what they call Progress.
Some other aspects of your talk on Thursday left me somewhat uneasy. To bring them up then would have extended the discussion long past its proper time, and so I venture to write you of them now. In discussing the purposes and opportunities of the university you were emphatic on its obligation to turn out scientists and engineers who would be useful in the weapons race; and linguists and diplomats capable of holding their own in the cold war, and capable of taking a persuasive part in cultural exchanges aimed at solidifying international friendships and humanists who could, as you said, collaborate with psychologists and others as communications experts; and so on. Perhaps I misinterpreted you, and perhaps you were taking for granted much of what is now on my mind, but I did understand you to look upon the university’s purposes with a highly practical eye, and judge its performance by purely practical criteria. We seemed, from your words, to be an institution dedicated to the production of technicians, scientists, experts, leaders — a sort of “human accelerator” as Arthur Wright put it, shooting out its business end experts and specialists with half their electrons missing and with their nuclei knocked whobberjawed. We seemed, as you described us, to be something like the Stanford Research Institute, subsisting on government research contracts and bending all our efforts toward the production of limited experts and the application of science and other knowledge to practical ends. Perhaps you did not mean to give this impression, but I think you did, especially in your commentary on the debate between generalists and specialists, where you clearly chose the side of specialization. Now I don’t quarrel with specialists, but I do think the other side needs stating more than you stated it. I suspect that what we most need is neither generalists nor specialists, but specialists who can generalize and generalists with a specialty. And I further suspect that we do not attract, develop, or hold this kind of faculty and train this kind of student unless we concentrate on being something that you did not mention at all: a community of minds, a fellowship of people who know something, are willing to communicate it, and are always wanting to know more. What makes a university, for me, is the climate of absolutely free intellectual inquiry, the pursuit of knowledge wherever it leads us, the almost anarchic emancipation from all applied or practical ends, from government preoccupation, from cold war needs, even from such common pedagogical intentions as the training of “leaders” or “citizens”. Obviously, Stanford and all other universities must depend to some considerable extent on government research contracts and to some lesser expert on private or industrial research contracts. But these activities are not the university. If, as I think you did, you intimated that the professional and research facilities were the most important part of the university, I must disagree, for it seems to me that the core of this university and any other university is the college or school of humanities and sciences, in which knowledge is not applied but “pure”, to be studied for its own sake. Keep that part of the university in health, and the production of experts and leaders (and specialists who can generalize and generalists with specialties) will follow automatically. Try self-consciously to produce specialists and leaders in that pre-professional college, and you will, I am convinced, produce half-men, limited men, men with imperfect vision and low horizons. And I would call to your attention, in connection with your general satisfaction with the undergraduate program at Stanford, that the School of Humanities and Sciences which does two thirds of all the teaching done by the university gets a whole lot less than 66% of the budget. I would have been better assured that Stanford is going to realize its potential as a university if in your talk before the AAUP you had given more stress to that indispensable core of humanities and sciences: the best that has been thought and said in the world on the one hand, and the purest and most adventurous pursuit of new knowledge on the other.
“This letter has gone on so long that you can see why I did not raise these questions and this apparent difference of opinion the other evening. I do agree with you that Stanford, which has always been a good university, is trembling on the brink of becoming one of the small number of great ones. At such a time, especially, the question of direction and goals is vital. I respectfully submit that our goal ought to be the goal of becoming the finest center of learning, the finest community of scholars, scientists, teachers, and students, that we can become; and that the short-term goal of producing practical troubleshooters and specialists will, if it is pursued too far, and by forcing us to abdicate our strongest position as a university.”
Wallace Stegner ”
Undated. Packard’s typewritten draft, with notations, of a response to the above letter from Professor Stegner. It has a note at the top, in perhaps his secretary’s handwriting, saying the draft was never completed.
“Dear Professor Stegner:
“In answer to your letter of May 11th I am sorry you did not raise the question which concerned you and apparently others about my talk, in the discussion period which followed. I think I might have been able to arrest some of your uneasiness as well as to receive some useful guidance from you and your colleagues.
“What I attempted to say was that the pressures for the production of technicians, scientists, experts, leaders, all the other tremendous people have been tremendous in the past and have tended to lead the University in a direction which was not necessarily proper in relation to its larger responsibilities to our society. Also, I attempted to outline conditions which I thought would continue to generate these pressures in the future and that it would be very difficult for us to avoid continued progress or shall we say -motion – in that same direction. I apparently did not state it in specific terms the other evening. I think I agree with you and probably most of the rest of the faculty, in saying that I think the core of humanities and sciences is in truth the most important part of the University. We must find ways to develop monetary support for these and other scholarly areas which are independent of the pressures which come from government contract money, from gifts, business and alumni support. What I intended to say is that we should divert our efforts away from the concept of simply building to strength. I think we have done too much of that in the past few years.
“I am sure this will be difficult and cannot be done all at once but I am convinced we can make more progress in what I believe you would consider to be the right direction in the future than we have in the past.
“I agree with you completely in your statement that the question of direction and goals is vital, even more vital in a period of rapid growth than any other time. Questions relating to the direction and the goals must of course be established by the faculty and the president of the University. It is vital however, that the direction and goals which you people establish be understood and accepted by the trustees, for only in this way can we work together to achieve what I am sure is really our common objective.
“I hope you will convey to your colleagues that I always welcome their suggestions and criticism. I would welcome the opportunity to discuss these and other important questions relating to the University in detail with you at any time. I have only one reason for spending my time in the service of the University and that is to work with all of you to help achieve even greater distinction in the future than it has enjoyed in the past ”
10/10/59 Typewritten address by Professor F. E. Terman on “Stanford’s Academic Goals and Academic Needs”
Professor Terman describes the growing prestige and visibility of Stanford, but says it “cannot stand still”. The goal is to be “one of the small group of leading universities in the country….and as the prestige institution in the west…..In order for Stanford to develop further its position as an institution of truly national stature it is necessary that we have:
1. A progressive strengthening of the salary structure
2. A healthy and steady growth of the faculty
3. Very substantial plant additions and rehabilitations
4. Improved housing for graduate students and junior staff, and completion of the undergraduate housing program.”
He addresses himself to the first two, salary structure and faculty.
As to salaries, Professor Terman says Stanford’s “scale has improved greatly in recent years…although still a little on the low side as compared with the best schools.” He goes on to describe troubles in attracting strong new faculty members. “It is clear,” he concludes,” that if Stanford is to achieve a top position in the nation, it must gradually but steadily strengthen the present salary structure…”
As to faculty, Professor Terman says that “Selective growth in the size of the Stanford faculty is required if Stanford is to maintain its present momentum and to achieve the position of leadership in the nation which is within our grasp.” He gives several examples of areas where this is particularly important.
Box 1, Folder 15 – HP Management
January 16, 1959, Third Annual Management Conference, Sonoma
1/16/59 Bound conference package containing agenda supporting material and handouts. This was Packard’s copy and has some handwritten notes by him.
Summary of Sonoma Conference. Written by Tom Christiansen, this is a summary of each managers talk.
9/25/58 Bound papers covering Engineering Management conference with agenda organization charts, and review of technical projects.
Box 1, Folder 16 – HP Management
July 12, 1959, Sales Seminar, Sales Representatives
5/22/59 Letter from Cort Van Rensselaer to Bill Hewlett confirming schedule of forthcoming seminar on July 12-15.
1958, Booklet from RCA on “Transistor Fundamentals & Applications”
Box 1, Folder 17 – HP Management
July 18, 1959, Production Department Seminar, Felton Recreation Area
7/18/59 Bound booklet containing letter from Dave Packard to attendees, plus number of organization charts of the Production Department. The letter from Packard says he is sorry he cannot attend and wishes them well.
Packard points out that the “majority of employees in the organization are directed by your efforts and about 64 cents out of every sales dollar we receive is spent under your responsibility.” Thus, Packard says, “to a large measure the success of the company is dependent upon your performance.”
Packard goes on to say that “…our prime management objective is to make a profit of about 20% on the sales dollar before allowances for profit sharing and tax. This year we achieved only 16.27% for the year to date…”.
He describes ways in which profits can be improved:
“Make sure people get started in their work on time and utilize their time effectively. Your planning must be done in advance and moreover you have to provide the spirit of leadership that keeps things going in a high pitch. Little details like the use of telephones for personal business during working hours. The amount of coffee we use – incidentally – coffee adds up to nearly $50,000 per year and there is a great tendency to let this run too free.”
Changing the subject, Packard talks about “spoilage.” He says “I am appalled to go around the plant and see barrels of parts, and even some completed sub-assemblies, thrown out after considerable time and money has been spent because of some stupid error. These are the things which you must work on to eliminate.”
Handling people, Packard says, is ” one of your most important jobs as managers.” Packard says that “your most important relationships with your people come about in your daily activities._ He urges the managers to “work closely with your subordinates in order to guide them and train them for more responsible positions…”
Packard thanks the managers for the fine progress they have seen in the past few years, “…but success like this, unfortunately, only serves to increase your responsibilities, for good work demands still more good work.”