Box 1, Folder 33 – HP Management
March, 1976, Notes on remarks to Second Executive Seminar, Palo Alto
3/76, Copy of typewritten text of speech. Since this is very similar to the above speech made to the fdirst Executive Seminar on March 17, 1975 it has not been included here again.
Box 4, Folder 2 – General Speeches
1/2/76, Letter to Packard from William R. Gerler, inviting Packard to the presentation of the Washington Award for 1976, to be made to Professor Ralph B. Peck
1/7/76, Copy of a letter from Packard to William R. Gerler saying it will not be possible for him to attend the dinner for Mr. Peck
2/16/76, copy of a telegram to Prof. Ralph B. Peck congratulating him for being selected to receive the Washington Award
2/28/76, Letter to Packard from Prof. Peck thanking him for the above telegram
12/15/76, Letter from William R. Gerler to Packard inviting him to the presentation of the 1977 Washington Award being made to Michael Tenenbaum, President of Inland Steel Co.
Box 4, Folder 8 – General Speeches
1/9/76, Copy of a letter from Packard to the Biglers thanking them for the telegram
1/12/76, Letter to Packard from John C. Warnecke asking for a copy of Packard’s remarks. He encloses a newspaper clipping covering the award event.
1/7/76, Letter to Packard from Thomas F. Gilbane congratulating Packard on the award
1/19/76, Copy of a letter from Packard to Thomas Gilbane thanking him for his letter
1/30/76, Note to Packard from Tiny Yewell congratulating him on the award
2/17/76, Letter to Packard from James L. McDowell of the Football Foundation enclosing several copies of their publication covering the event
Box 4, Folder 9 – General Speeches
1976-1979, Separate folder – The National Football Foundation and Hall of Fame, Various letters over this period, mostly invitations to Packard to attend annual affairs, most of which he declined. The contents of this folder are listed below.
4/2/76, Letter to Packard from Stan Gray of the Foundation’s Los Angeles Chapter inviting Mr. and Mrs. Packard to and awards dinner for local high school student athletes. A penciled note written thereon says “called regrets.”
8/13/76, Copy of a letter to Packard from Vincent dePaul Draddy, Chairman of the Foundation Board, inviting him to the “official ground-breaking ceremony of the college Football Hall of Fame at Kings Island family entertainment center. Handwritten note thereon says “Returned card, no.”
10/6/76, Copy of a letter to Packard from Vincent dePaul Draddy inviting Packard to “join us once again as a Dais Guest of Honor at the Annual Awards Dinner on December 7, 1976…” Attached is a copy of a check from Packard to the Foundation for $250.
10/29/76, Letter to Packard from Alfred G. Cinelli of the Northern California Chapter, inviting Packard to attend the Seventeenth Annual Awards Dinner to be held in San Francisco of December 13th. A handwritten note on the letter says “No.” A copy of the program for the Sixteenth Annual Awards Dinner is attached.
Box 4, Folder 10 – General Speeches
February 24, 1976, Comments on the Conduct of Hewlett-Packard’s International Business, at annual stockholder’s meeting
2/24/76, Copy of printed pamphlet containing a transcript of Packard’s comments at the stockholders meeting.
Packard says that 1975 was the first year then HP’s international orders exceeded domestic orders. He says products are sold in 141 different countries, and in 30 of these HP has its own sales organization. In other countries he explains that we sell through independent sales representatives or distributors.
Packard says that ”Because there has been a great deal of news about bribes, pay-offs, kickbacks, and illegal political contributions by American companies operating overseas, I thought it appropriate to inform our stockholders about Hewlett-Packard policy in these matters.
“The Hewlett-Packard Company,” he says, “believes that bribes, pay-offs, kickbacks and illegal political contributions have no place in the conduct of our business, whether at home or abroad. Over the years we have emphasized this policy in our management meetings and in meetings and discussions with our sales and marketing people. I believe we have made it abundantly clear to all of our people that under no circumstances will we
make an illegal payment or even a questionable payment to anyone to obtain an order. I believe all of our people fully understand that if such a payment is requested to obtain an order, the only choice we have is to refuse the order.”
Packard points that the company has asked both internal and external auditors of look for any evidence of violations of this policy and report any questionable items to the office of the Chief Executive Officer.
Packard also discusses Arab boycotts. “These are restrictive trade practices or boycotts imposed by Arab nations against Israel or against nations or organizations considered friendly to Israel. The question has been asked of many American corporations as to whether they participate in, or cooperate with any such boycotts. I would like to describe Hewlett-Packard’s policy and position on this matter.”
“Sales to Israel and Arab customers, as in every nation in which we do business, are conducted in strict compliance with the United States laws and regulations, the principal regulatory agency being the U.S. Department of Commerce. In addition, in every country in which we do business, it is our policy to comply with all local regulations and customs….Should a situation arise in which the customs and business practices in a certain country appear to be in conflict with U.S. export regulations, or with Hewlett-Packard’s self-imposed standards of ethical business conduct, we would not hesitate to discontinue our sales activity in that country.
“Our company is not a political organization. It is a business institution, one that believes that free trade among nations is in the best interest of our country and our stockholders. As a manifestation of this philosophy, we are unalterably opposed in principle to any boycott. We will refuse any requests made to Hewlett-Packard, either to the parent company or a subsidiary, that we participate in any boycott.”
Box 4, Folder 11 – General Speeches
May 11, 1976, The Vermilye Award, The Franklin Institute, Philadelphia, PA
5/11/76, Typewritten copy of Packard’s speech
Packard says that he and Bill Hewlett are “delighted to be here tonight, and to receive this most distinguished award. I can assure you,” he says, “it gives us a feeling of both pride and humility to be honored by this prestigious organization.
Talking a bit about the 152 year history of the Franklin Institute, Packard says he would like “to congratulate all of those associated with the Institute for the honor they recently received when the United States Congress designated this Hall as a National Memorial to Benjamin Franklin….The Institute is a living tribute to the ideals and aspirations of its namesake, and has steadfastly upheld the finest traditions of study and innovation – two traits so closely associated with Benjamin Franklin.
“Franklin,” Packard says, “was a self-taught innovator of magnificent proportion, ever faithful to his belief that ‘To cease to think is but little different from ceasing to be’….The federal system that he helped design incorporated this basic concept, and this greatly encouraged individual initiative and inventiveness.”
“Almost without exception, technical innovation has been more prolific and more productive in the United States than in any other country. In the early years when the country was largely rural, the term ‘Yankee ingenuity’ was coined to express this unusual ability that seemed so characteristic of America.
“In these last four decades since World War II, this early tradition has been carried forward and technical innovation in the field of electronics has kept the United States far ahead of every other country in the world. This is also true of aviation, space activity, and many, many other fields, particularly those derived from advanced technology.
“Tonight I want to speculate with you as to how this favorable environment for technical innovation has developed here in our country and to express some concern as to whether it will continue to survive in the future.”
Acknowledging that technical innovation depends on basic research Packard says “the United States has [not] had any special monopoly on scientific knowledge.” He points out that basic research has flourished in other countries such as the Soviet Union, Japan and Europe, yet “There have been only a limited number of important new developments in electronics made in either Europe or Japan [or the Soviet Union] since World War II.”
“The priceless ingredient we have had here in our country that has made technical innovation so productive is the opportunity for the individual entrepreneur. This is, of course, the opportunity Bill Hewlett and I had back in the 1930s. Thousands of new businesses have been started and hundreds of thousands of new products have been brought to the American people because the United States has been a nation of individual entrepreneurs. The American farmer is working for himself. It is his land, his livestock, his crops. When the American farmer produces a better crop by applying new technology he is the one who personally benefits. The Soviet farmer is not working for himself – he is working for the State. He is, in fact, encouraged by the State to apply new technology, but he has no real incentive to do so. It is not his land, not his livestock, not his crops.
“In a very real since Bill Hewlett and I have been working for ourselves since 1939 – something that could not have been done at all in the Soviet Union. It would have been more difficult in Europe and Japan. We have also tried to structure the management of our company to preserve a large measure of individual freedom for the scientists and engineers who work with us in our company.
“Technical innovation in the United States has flourished these past two centuries primarily because we have had a very large measure of personal freedom. There has been relatively little erosion of personal freedom in the economic area until very recently. Unfortunately, since the late 1960s the situation has been deteriorating very rapidly.
“A good example is the San Francisco Peninsula, which has been a spawning ground for electronic companies since the 1920s. In the 1960s many new firms were being formed there in semi-conductor and computer related fields -–as many as twenty or thirty new businesses a year. Since 1971 this important and traditional spawning ground for new high technology enterprises has dried up and very few new companies are now being started.
“Betsy Ancker-Johnson, Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Science and Technology, held a hearing in Palo Alto just a few weeks ago to determine the reason why so few companies have been started on the Peninsula in the past five years. She learned the problem was not lack of research, but rather government sponsored disincentives to new business. The Tax Reform Law of 1969 closed off capital formation in this area. New regulations, she was told, from the Internal Revenue Service, the Security Exchange Commission, the Financial Accounting Standards Board and other agencies have made liquidity extremely difficult and thus greatly reduced the opportunity for venture capital.
“Some of the new accounting standards being implemented by the Financial Accounting Standards Board are making life much more difficult for an established business. They would be not only burdensome but would actually jeopardize the chance of survival for a newly established business.
“Outside the accounting and financial realm there have been dozens of other new impediments to the individual who has an innovative idea on which a new business could be started.
“The Occupational Safety and Health administration (OSHA), the Environmental Protection agency (EPA), the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), and many more regulatory agencies, most of recent vintage, add hours of work – and completely non-productive work – to the task of anyone on even the most attractive technical innovation.
“I have serious doubts that the Hewlett-Packard Company would have survived if in the early years Bill and I had been required to spend our time filling out government forms and responding to bureaucratic demands.
“This is a matter of very grave concern because this trend, if it continues, will most certainly take much of the vitality out of our free enterprise economy. New companies and new enterprises which have sprung from the technical innovation of individual after individual have contributed a great deal to the betterment of the American way of life. They have been a stimulus in providing employment, they have improved income levels, they have developed new and needed products, they have spawned new industries, they have played a major role in improving productivity, and they have been instrumental in helping find solutions to some of society’s most pressing problems.
“I am very troubled, therefore, by the continuing attempt of government to add layer on layer of rules and regulations that tell business and industry what it can and cannot do. I have read studies recently that indicate there are more than 5000 different types of federal government forms, and that individuals and businesses spend some 130 million man-hours a year filling them out. The government regulatory workforce now numbers nearly 75,000 and the cost in taxes alone to support this body of enforcers is in the neighborhood of three billion dollars. The real cost to our economy is many times this amount measured by the loss of productivity caused by this vast army of enforcers. Some have estimated this to be at least 50 billions of dollars.”
Packard says it is not just the harassment and cost of all these rules and regulations. “it is the philosophy behind them that worries me even more. As James Kilpatrick said in a recent column: ‘The more uniformity, the less freedom. As government becomes our benevolent shepherd, so we must become its obedient sheep.’ I would add the prediction that we are likely to become just as innovative as a band of obedient sheep.
Packard refers to the German economic theorist – Friedrich Hayek – who pointed out, in 1944, that the road to socialism is the road to serfdom. “His theme,” Packard says, “was that democratic Socialism was an impossibility. When the government decides what you must do with whatever wealth you have been able to generate it takes away your personal freedom. I submit to you that this destructive process is now going on in our country. We are a long way down the road toward destroying the essential element that has made technical innovation a forceful element of progress and prosperity these past two hundred years -–it is a priceless asset we can not afford to lose.”
“This avalanche of government rules and regulations is not going to be productive in giving the public better products or better services at lower cost. Controls on the actions of business and industry in the areas of environmental control and safety for example, are undoubtedly inspired by lofty ideals – and also needed in some form and some degree. But I’m convinced that we will have a better outcome if business and industry are allowed to anticipate and act on these problems with a minimum of government interference.
“It is a fact of life that business and industry have already lost considerable freedom of action. I do not know whether this tide can be turned back but it behooves us to try.
“One course of action is for everyone who believes in the free enterprise system to do a better job of maintaining personal contact with members of Congress. A great many of these people are generally sympathetic to business and the free market concept, but often they do not realize the dangers in a proposed piece of legislation unless someone explains the situation to them. I am convinced that all of us must do more than we have in the past in communicating with our government on pending legislation which may affect business operations.
“Another step those of us in business can take is to develop effective good citizenship programs in the organizations with which we are associated, whether companies or other enterprises, thereby encouraging informed and effective political participation by our employees and our stockholders They are the people who will lose the most if this trend continues. They can help influence the course of anti-business legislation with their legislative representatives.
“And I think all of you who share my concern must do a better job of telling the general public what is going on for they too are the ones who will lose.
“In this year of our country’s Bicentennial it is indeed appropriate to renew our commitment to the heritage of freedom given us 200 years ago by our founding fathers – a heritage that includes the freedom to innovate and the freedom to conduct our personal lives with a minimum of government interference.
“We need, again and again, to remind ourselves that by working together in a spirit of cooperation the public and private sectors can resolve the major and complex problems facing our country – by working at opposites, we rightfully will be condemned by generations to come for our failure to pass on intact the American enterprise system so essential to a free and healthy nation.
“It has been a privilege for Bill and me to be with you tonight, and a great honor to receive the Vermilye Medal.
“Thank you.”
5/11/76, Copy of a printed pamphlet with the above speech
5/11/76, Copy of a typewritten text of speech
5/11/76, Copy of a typewritten draft of speech with many handwritten notations by Packard
1974, Copy of the printed annual report of The Franklin Institute for 1974
1/29/76, Letter to Packard from Bowen C. Dees, President, The Franklin Institute, telling him that ‘The Board of Managers of The Franklin Institute has voted unanimously to award to you and Mr. William R. Hewlett the Institute’s Vermilye Medal for outstanding accomplishment in the field of industrial management.’
2/9/76, Copy of a letter from Jerry Russom, of a PR firm in San Francisco, to David Kirby of HP public relations, telling him what he had been able to find out about The Franklin Institute.
2/12/76, Copy of a letter from Hewlett to Bowen Dees agreeing to accept the Vermilye Medal
2/16/76, Copy of a letter from Packard to Bowen Dees accepting the honor of the Vermilye Medal
2/18/76, Letter to Packard from Peter Geyelin of the Franklin Institute, giving some background on the medal, and some details of the evening’s program
4/2/76, Memo from Dave Kirby to Margaret Paull and Madie Schneider, Dave and Bill’s secretaries, giving more details on the program and trip
4/20/76, Letter to Packard from Dr. Antonie T. Knoppers, Merck & Co., congratulating Dave and Bill, and asking for a copy of the speech as he will be away and unable to attend
5/18/76, Copy of a letter from Packard to Bowen C. Dees saying they enjoyed the award evening
6/1/76, Letter to Packard from Harry L. Peters, Sr. VP with Fischer & Porter, asking for permission to send copies of Packard’s speech to their representatives in Washington
6/3/76, Copy of a letter from Packard to Harry L. Peters giving permission to send copies of Packard’s speech to their representatives in Washington
Box 4, Folder 12 – General Speeches
May 21, 1976, U. S. Foreign Policy and World Trade, Accepting the 1976 International Achievement Award, World Trade Club, San Francisco, CA
5/21/76, Copy of typewritten text of speech, with some notations handwritten by Packard
Packard says HP first became involved in world trade some thirty years ago. “Last year,” he says, “our company passed a very significant milestone in our international business when our international orders exceeded our domestic orders.” And he adds that he expects that trend to continue.
Packard says he wants to talk “about U.S. foreign policy and make some observations on this policy as it relates to world trade. Too often people in the United States think of our foreign policy as something not very close to their personal lives, and not very important to them, so I would like to begin with some basic observations about U.S. foreign policy and its impact on trade throughout the world.
“The first thing we need to remind ourselves is that the foreign policy of the United States must be linked directly and fundamentally to the self interest of our country. Any facet of U.S. foreign policy that does not have as its first objective, as well as its likely outcome, the welfare of the United States, is wrong.”
Packard says he supports “self-determination and democracy and the full range of other social and political goals that, if achievable and achieved, would make the world a better place in which to live. I happen to believe, in addition, that charity begins at home and the first and most fundamental goal of U.S. foreign policy must be to make the United States a better place for its own citizens.
“World trade, as a fundamental aspect of U.S. foreign policy, has played an important role over these past two centuries in both the economic and social betterment of our country. And, in trading with other countries around the world we have contributed to the economic betterment of our trading partners. I would take this a step further and say that we have often, though not always, contributed to their social betterment as well.
In support of this conclusion Packard says, “Ideas follow goods and services around the world. Companies such as ours send people to foreign lands where they become involved in the life and culture of the foreign country. We apply our basic Hewlett-Packard management policies where we have plants abroad. We choose to do this because we feel that our policies, particularly as they relate to the treatment of our employees and our customers, will best promote the welfare of our company. We strongly believe, as well, that they will contribute to the welfare of the countries in which we operate.”
“Indirectly then, world trade, and I believe most other facets of U.S. foreign policy, even though primarily directed toward the welfare of our country, have a real and legitimate interest in promoting the welfare of the rest of the world.
“In considering the objectives of our foreign policy, national security must have the highest priority. While there exists no military threat to our nation in traditional terms of the invasion of our land, the presence of nuclear weapons is an ultimate threat that we cannot avoid, and must not ignore.”
“We need adequate military forces, a foreign policy designed to keep the support of our friends and the respect of our potential enemies, and we must maintain the will for world leadership.”
Packard says that when he was in the Department of Defense “it was my responsibility to implement the development of the latest and best weapons for our military forces.” He says they [the U.S.]knew the Soviets were building up their strategic nuclear forces, and they recognized “the absolute necessity of avoiding any real or perceived weakness on our part.” And he mentions a number of weapons and weapons systems that they implemented.
“These programs, and [others] have not been fully supported by the Congress. In fact the total shortfall in funding over the past few years amounts to about 40 billion dollars. Some of these important programs have been delayed, although it is fortunate that none has been eliminated.”
Packard says that “If Congress and whoever is in the White House will fully support, from here on out, all of the strategic nuclear programs which were initiated during the three years I was in Washington there is no justification for the statement we are, or will become, second best.
“We have, and will have, the military forces adequate to keep the support of our friends and the respect of our potential enemies. If we have the will and the wisdom in Washington we can continue, and even enlarge, our role of world leadership.
“As we do so, we will contribute to world peace and broaden the opportunity to expand our world trade. Trade clearly flourishes best in a world at peace. Why, though, one may ask, is world trade important to our country? Cannot we isolate ourselves as a nation, concentrate our resources and energies on our problems here at home, and just go back to that nostalgic era when we could let the rest of the world go by?
“The most obvious reason,” Packard says, “is that we are no longer anywhere near self-sufficient in natural resources. As you know, our domestic production of oil falls far short of our consumption.” And Packard names a number of metals where we import high percentages of our requirements: manganese, cobalt, chromium, tin, aluminum ore, and nickel. “These are important materials, the benefits of which would be deprived to us – or made exorbitantly expensive – were it not for world trade.
“Without trade there would be far fewer jobs in many industries. Half of the jobs in the Hewlett-Packard Company…would disappear – about 5,000 in the United States and 10,000 in the rest of the world.
“When we think of what life in the United States would be without world trade I think we conclude, without any doubt, world trade meets the all important first principle of foreign policy – it is in the best interest of the people of the United States.”
“U.S. foreign policy must be administered as it impacts world trade in a way that balances a number of complex and interrelated matters, thousands of different kinds of products and thousands of different kinds of jobs.
“It is clearly too much to expect that the people in government in the United States, or in any other country, can make the balanced judgments that will provide a near optimum outcome in the complex matters of world trade anywhere nearly as well as will the forces of the free market.
“I firmly believe, therefore, that U.S. foreign policy will best serve the interest of the people of the country if it is designed to optimize the barriers to free trade around the world and to strengthen the concept of a free market.”
“Ten years ago our company could produce some of our products cheaper in Germany or Japan than here in the U.S. That is no longer true. In some areas we can now build a product in the United States, ship it overseas, pay duty, and deliver it in a foreign country at a lower cost that is required to manufacture the product in that country.
“Clearly the future course for our country is to continue to maintain our leadership role in an increasingly interdependent world, to keep the peace, and to do everything we can to eliminate the barriers to free world trade.
“We are the only country that has the strength to influence all nations, large and small, weak and powerful, in a way that their differences – their conflicts – can be resolved at levels far below those likely to escalate to the use of nuclear weapons.
“We are the only nation in the world with the influence to help keep the avenues of world trade open, and thus to help bring the benefits of technology, industrial management, and the invisible hand of the free market to improve the quality of life for our people here at home and our friends abroad.
“It has been a great honor to be here tonight. Thank you very much.”
5/21/76, Copy of typewritten text of speech with some handwritten notations by Packard
5/21/76, Copy of printed program for the award event
12/12/75, Letter to Packard from Paul Le Baron of the World Trade Club of San Francisco, telling him that he has been selected to receive the World Trade Club’s 1976 Award for International Achievement.
12/17/75, Copy of a letter from Packard to Paul Le Baron telling him he will look forward to receiving the award on May 21, 1976
3/11/76, Copy of a letter to James D. North from Christopher R. Redlich telling him of the forthcoming award presentation to Packard and suggesting that ‘some of his campmates’ might wish to organize a table …to be with him on the evening ….
3/18/76, Copy of a letter to Paul Le Baron from Edgar F. Kaiser saying it would be a pleasure to present the award to Packard
3/18/76, Letter to Packard from Edgar F. Kaiser congratulating Packard and saying he looks forward to the evening
4/11/76, Letter to Packard from Alvin Plumer congratulating him on the award
4/16/76, Letter to Margaret Paull from C. R. Redlich thanking her for accepting the invitation to the award event
4/21/76, Letter to Packard from Paul LeBaron giving some details on the ceremony
5/13/76, Copy of a letter from Packard to Marriner S. Eccles thanking him for his note
5/24/76, Letter to Packard from J. T. Hood of GE, saying they enjoyed their visit with the Packards and asking for a copy of Packard’s speech
5/26/76, Letter to Packard from Edgar F. Kaiser, congratulating him again
7/14/76, Letter to Packard from Hugh O’Connell, Crocker Bank, sending Packard a ‘momento book,’ of the evening’s events
7/20/76, Copy of a letter from Packard to Hugh O’Connell thanking him for the momento book he had sent
Newspaper clippings covering the event
4/9/76, Daily Commercial News
5/22/76, Palo Alto Times
5/24/76, Oakland Tribune
5/24/76, Daily Commercial News
Undated, unnamed paper, photo showing Packard being presented with the award by WTC President Paul Le Baron and Edgar F. Kaiser
Box 4, Folder 13 – General Speeches
June 8, 1976, Electronics and Free Enterprise, The Chicago Spring Conference on Consumer Electronics, Chicago, IL
6/8/76, Copy of typewritten text of speech with many handwritten notations by Packard
Packard says he wants to discuss “the most serious problem which is confronting all of American business and industry – the low regard in which these segments are held by the American public.” He says, “the confidence and the respect of the people of this country in business and industry is at the lowest level that I can recall. It is a phenomenon difficult to describe, hard to understand, but it is crucial to the very survival of our free enterprise system that business and industry regain the respect and confidence of the American people.”
Packard says that polls indicate that only 16% of the public have “faith and respect for American business and industry,” and he compares this to a 55% favorable figure a decade ago. “Yet… polls show,” he adds, “that the public believes the free enterprise system is better than communism or socialism;” although he also points out that “all too many express a preference for government ownership over private ownership of major industries. Many…believe that bigness in business is bad, whereas in fact, it is sometimes not only good but best.”
“This low opinion held by the public of business and industry is reflected in a number of much more important and serious ways than in opinion polls.
“Ralph Nader can bring forth an army of raiders to defend our customers from the evil acts of our business firms.
“The federal government has over the last few years enacted a vast amount of legislation and administrative regulation to protect our customers, our employees, our shareowners, and the general public from the evil schemes of our business firms.”
“We now have the government telling us who we can hire, and where and how we can build our plants. Bureaucrats from Washington are involved in the design of our products, in the working environment of our employees, and what we must do for our employees when they retire. We are told what we must disclose to our shareowners, what our product warranties should be, and on ad infinitum.”
Packard says that while the intent of this regulation has been good, it has not achieved much of what has been intended. “No one can object,” he says, “to the goals of reducing air and water pollution, or of providing equal opportunity for people regardless of race, color, sex, age, or religion. Certainly we all want safe working environments for our employees, and we have no quarrel with the need to accept the responsibility after their retirement for those men and women who have served our companies well.
“I do not dispute the fact that there has been some, but I would emphasize not very much needed improvement in the areas of equal opportunity in employment and in improving the environment, but there are clearly ways we could have done just as well, or even better, at a lower cost.
“OSHA, for example, has added substantial costs both on the government side and on the industry side, and has resulted in no significant improvement in occupational safety or health.
“Taken together this vast array of regulations which have been imposed on our business enterprises have increased our costs by substantial sums, but have been of very minimal benefit to our customers, our employees, our shareowners, or the general public.”
Packard agreed that “air pollution from automobile exhaust is a serious problem that must be dealt with.” But he feels that “The efforts of the federal government to do this with arbitrary regulations has resulted in very little improvement, but they have imposed a horrendous cost on our economy.
“In 1975 alone government mandated features to control emissions, and some features for personal safety, increased the cost of an automobile by $600 or more, and made cars less efficient and less attractive than previous year’s models. Without a doubt this was the major cause of last year’s recession in the automobile industry.
“The American people simply did not want a car designed by a committee of the Congress.
“This one exercise in federal regulation cost the American people tens of billions of dollars in lost wages during the recent recession, and, there is great doubt that there will be much improvement in the environment from the 1975 model cars, especially as these cars get older.”
“The electronics industry has from the very beginning been characterized by technical innovation. The industry was born and has grown to maturity because individuals such as Bill Hewlett and I, and many of you here today, could start a new business with a new product idea and build it into a successful company.
“One of the greatest costs to our economy which is not so obvious is the deadening effect of all of these regulatory activities on technical innovation.
“This is a matter close to my personal experience, and I would like to put it this way. If, in 1939 and 1940, we had been required to spend as much time dealing with government bureaucrats as is required in business today, I am convinced that Hewlett-Packard Company would never have gotten off the ground.”
And Packard says his “intuitive feeling on this subject is reinforced by the fact that there are very few new electronic firms being started today on the San Francisco peninsula compared to the years before 1969. “I have no doubt that this is a problem nationwide, and a problem in many other industries in addition to electronics,” he says.
“If what we want in America is a no growth economy and higher cost products, that’s what we are going to have unless we get rid of these nonsensical regulations.”
“Some people attribute these problems to the election of the wrong people to the Congress and to the Administration in Washington. And, in doing so, I assume there are still Republicans in Washington. I might note in passing that much of this bad legislation has accrued during a Republican Administration – which has been accused of being pro-business – and with a considerable assist from that Administration. We must remember that men and women are elected to the government by the people back home and, when they take office, they must be generally responsive to their constituents. If we have anti-business people in the Congress, and anti-business legislation and regulation, it is to a very large degree a reflection of the anti-business attitude of the public.
“Assuming it is the attitude of the public, some people attribute this to a faulty educational system. They claim that we have not been teaching young people good economics, and that there is too much anti-business philosophy being taught in our schools and colleges. “
“Many people believe we should be telling a better story to the public about the virtues and benefits of our great free enterprise economy – what it has done in providing better jobs and better products than any other economic system anywhere or any time. This is true. We have a record to be proud of in many ways and the story about the good things our companies are doing can be communicated better to all of our audiences.
“Others believe we should work more closely with people in government on the theory that often they do not understand the probable outcome of legislation they sponsor or support. Some of our legislators do not even fully read or understand the legislation they vote for. Good work is being done in this area, and it will certainly help to have more effective two-way communication between business and government.”
Packard, however, says he has come “to the conclusion that we have been looking for the most part at the symptoms of the disease, not at the disease itself.
“I believe,” he says, “American business faces this crisis today because American business managers have not lived up to their responsibility to our society. Illegal payments have been made with the hope of getting business or special favors from officials in government, both here at home and abroad. We put off for too long our responsibilities in the area of equal employment – it should not have been necessary for the government to do any more than perhaps prod us into action. We have taken liberty with the truth in our advertising, and often depended on fine print in our warranties to avoid our responsibility to our customers.
“Our shareowners would have no need for all the information now demanded for them if they had full confidence in our commitment to their best interest.
“Nader’s raiders would get nowhere if their activities did not find fertile ground. Our legislators would have no need for, and in fact would not be interested in, anti-business legislation if the people back home never raised the issue.
“I assure you the news media would have no interest in inventing horror stories about business just to make headlines if, in fact, there were no real horror stories about business to make those headlines.
“I submit to you that the businessmen of this country have no one to blame but themselves for this terrible situation that has developed for us.
“It is not enough that business leadership is much more enlightened in these matters than it was twenty or even ten years ago. We simply have not met the expectations of the people we serve, and until we do we will never be free from ever increasing governmental regulation and pressure group activity coming at us from all sides.
“It is terribly unfortunate, because as I have already indicated, governmental regulations seldom solve the problem in a reasonable way. Pressure groups from various sectors of our public are not an effective way to deal with these problems either – for those who feel themselves aggrieved, or for the business community.
“I am convinced that the only way we can hope to turn back this tide which threatens to engulf and destroy our great free enterprise system is for all business leaders, at all levels, to stop passing the blame to someone else and to accept the responsibility as theirs and theirs alone.
“Let me explain what I mean – as an example. The stories we hear nearly every day in the news media about an illegal payoff, about price fixing, about the recall of defective products, and all the rest, as I have already said, are not made up by the news media. And, they do not occur because our Boards of Directors or our Chief Executive Officers want them to happen. Quite the contrary. Almost all illegal or unethical acts by people in business happen without the knowledge and in spite of the intent of top management. Nearly every firm I have ever encountered has a code of ethics, whether written or not, which would – if properly communicated to and properly understood by everyone in the organization – serve to prevent any illegal or unethical act by anyone at any level. The reason those bad acts happen is in most cases because of a failure of management communication within an organization. These things happen because someone, at some level in the organization, did not get the message that honesty is the best policy.
“Management communication on this matter is not always easy for two significant reasons. Both laws and acceptable customs are continually changing and are different in different countries. This is, no doubt, why multi-national companies have more problems in this area than domestic companies.
“Often, too, the correct course of action in a particular situation is not always black or white. When is a payment a legitimate gratuity, and when is it a bribe?
“This complexity makes the management communication job more difficult. Publishing a code of ethics is never sufficient. It is the responsibility of top management of make sure the corporate code is understood and accepted at all levels. This requires discussion and repetition – and must be a never ending job.
“We have men and women throughout the business community as intelligent and as dedicated to the welfare of mankind as can be found in any other segment of our society. If all of us in this industry and every other industry simply make a commitment that this is our job, I am convinced that it will be done. We simply have to accept the fact that the integrity of each of our business firms is our most important asset, and we must do everything we can to make sure this is understood at all levels of our organizations. If every action we take is resting firmly on the pillars of honesty, fair play, justice, and with at least a small measure of compassion, these troublesome problems will disappear. The time is late and the stakes are high.”
6/7-8/76, Copy of printed program for Chicago Spring Conference on Consumer Electronics
9/4/75, Letter to Packard from Anthony Troiano, Program Chairman, inviting him to be the luncheon speaker
1/30/76, Copy of a letter from Margaret Paull to Anthony Troiano, saying that Packard accepts their invitation to be the guest speaker
5/17/76, Copy of a letter to Packard from Anthony Troiano sending registration tickets
6/8/76, Copy of HP press release covering Packard’s speech
6/17/76, Letter to Packard from Frederick B. Dent, The Special Representative for Trade Negotiations, saying he had read the copy of Packard’s speech in Chicago and believes ‘…we are making progress in accommodating the private sector and the Government’s views on trade matters.’
6/22/76, Letter to Packard from John C. Levy saying he found it very significant and encouraging that a man of Packard’s stature in the industrial community ‘would address this issue and confront your colleagues with it.’
8/2/76, Letter to Packard from William E. Simon, Secretary of Treasury, saying he enjoyed reading Packard’s speech very much and ‘couldn’t agree more’
8/16/76, Letter to Packard from Merl Moore, News Editor, sending advance copies of the publication ‘California Business,’ which includes Packard’s address
8/20/76, Letter to Packard from Howard Betts General Manager, Delta Rubber, saying that he had just read Packard’s speech found it ‘great, until you chucked the political spear. Then it sounded like so many words.’
9/27/76, Letter to Packard from Arjay Miller, Dean, Stanford Graduate School of Business, congratulating him on a ‘fine’ speech
Undated, Note from A. J. Pepper enclosing a copy of a speech by a Mr.Pronto
Newspaper clippings
4/25/76, From San Francisco Chronicle, is a clipping of a column by James Reston discussing Nelson Rockefeller’s future
4/76, Clipping from An American Spectator, with an article entitled ‘The Business of America,’ by Stephen A. Snow
6/1/76, Clipping from The Wall Street Journal, with an article by Arthur Schlesinger Jr. titled ‘Government, Business and Morality’
6/8/76, Clipping from Palo Alto Times covering Packard’s speech
7/30/76, Letter to Packard from William C. Sands, Jr., enclosing a clipping from the Electronics Journal covers the speech and describes Packard as ‘Angry, Hurt, and Apologetic’
Box 4, Folder 14 – General Speeches
August 27, 1976, Remarks at the 50th Annual Sacramento Host Breakfast, Sacramento, CA
8/27/76, Typewritten text of Packard’s remarks
Packard explains that he will start with some background on how the California Roundtable started, and Justin Dart will describe the specific activities already underway.
“There has been an alarming loss in the public confidence of business and industry in recent years,” Packard says. “There is an increasingly hostile atmosphere for business and industry, not only in our state, but across the nation as well.
“We are being challenged by environmentalists, by consumerists, by equal opportunists, and many other groups within our society. These people, in these activist groups, have, in general, desirable and legitimate goals – but I believe they have had an unduly adverse impact on business and industry, and that a better balance between our mutual goals should be sought.
“Largely as a result of pressure from these activist groups, local, state and federal governments, particularly during the past five or six years, have enacted a large number of restrictions and implemented regulatory actions which have greatly complicated and severely limited the management effectiveness of business and industry.
Packard says, however, that the issue is not that management’s job has been made more difficult; nor is it that business has a low rating in the eyes of the public. “he real issue,” he says, “is that these conditions have had a significant adverse effect on the economic welfare and well being of all people – not only across our state, but across our nation.
“Anti-business activities have substantially increased the cost of goods and services – from food and housing to automobiles and hospital care. Thus, they have helped create inflation.
“They have reduced our ability to create new jobs. Thus, they have increased unemployment.
“They have, in some cases, resulted in products which are not only more costly, but also less attractive and less useful. Thus, they have not resulted in cost effective solutions to the problems they have been intended to solve.
“Anti-business sentiment, without any doubt, deepened and lengthened our recent recession.
“It can be argued that there have been some desirable benefits. But, many would also argue the cost has been far more than the value of the benefits received. And, it is not business and industry alone that pays the cost of these restrictive actions – unfortunately, in the end it is the average citizen who pays. He or she pays higher prices for goods and services, and higher taxes as well. [Or the cost] may be in poor service, or less desirable products, or in the loss of a job.”
These troubled times of business and industry are not new Packard says, and he describes several similar occasions since the founding of the country. “This fact offers little solace perhaps,” he says, “but it does mean we could probably learn something from history about how these situations arise and how they turn out.”
“One thing is obvious in a historical perspective, when business, or for that matter any other institution in a society, fails to live up to the legitimate aspirations of that society, countervailing forces will arise to try to correct the situation. And at the same time, the higher authority – meaning the government in most cases – will take the matter in hand.
“The labor movement was such a countervailing activity. Business and industry during the late 19th century and early 20th century failed to understand and accept their proper responsibilities toward their employees. This labor problem, as you well know, also brought about considerable restrictive legislation.”
“During the ‘trust- busting’ era the same forces were at work, and have resurged [sic] during the past few years.
“In my opinion, this situation with which we are concerned today has been brought on – just as those in the past – by the failure of business leadership to recognize and live up to their full responsibilities to the society in which they work and live. [The] expectations of our society are changing.
“Illegal payments have been made with the hope of getting special favors from officials in governments at home and abroad. These actions by a few have made problems for all business and industry. They have made problems because the American people in 1976 expect higher ethical standards. This has not always been the case.
“Responsibilities in the area of equal opportunity were not recognized and accepted when they should have been. As a result, pressure groups and the government had to act.
“Liberties have been taken with truth in advertising and fine print in warranties to avoid responsibility to customers. Consumerists and regulatory bodies have responded.
“Industry could have taken much more serious recognition of environmental problems before it was forced to do so.
“As I said a few months ago before an audience in Chicago, Nader’s raiders would get nowhere if their activities did not find fertile ground. Our legislators would have no need for, and in fact would not be interested in, anti-business legislation if the people back home never raised the issue.
“There are many things that can be done through better communication with our various publics, better cooperation between business people and people in government on these problems of mutual concern. The California Roundtable has a number of programs under way in these areas which we believe will be helpful. Our success in improving the situation will not come about through an improved public relations effort unless we can also undertake to do a better job in the first place. To the extent we in business can solve some of these underlying problems ourselves, and establish higher standards of business performance, we will minimize future government interference and reduce the adverse effect of public action groups.”
Packard then turns to a brief description of how the California Roundtable got started.
He says that 1n 1974 the Directors of the California Chamber of Commerce decided that the problems of business and industry should be studied more carefully to determine what might be done to improve the situation. “Accordingly, a task force on business credibility…was established,…and included representatives from other business sectors, education and trade organizations.
Packard says the taskforce worked for about a year, and then presented their recommendations to the Chamber Directors in March 1975. “The taskforce recommended a number of specific actions aimed at re-establishing a higher level of trust between the public and the business community. It was recognized that this would require a long and intensive effort, and toward that end the taskforce recommended the establishment of a California Foundation for Commerce and Education to help in this effort to improve the credibility of business.
Packard says not everyone agreed with all the recommendations, but “there was a strong feeling that something needed to be done, and so it was unanimously agreed that the proposed new organization be established.”
“As we moved along with the job, we realized that much of the work that should be done in California would parallel closely the work of the National Business Roundtable.” And Packard explains that they obtained permission from the national roundtable to re-name the new organization the California Roundtable.
“to be successful, we all agreed the organization must have the participation of the Chief Executive Officers of the member companies, and we have an outstanding group of CEOs from across the state now participating.”
Packard then says he wishes to list the current projects they have underway, indicating that Justin Dart will describe them in more detail.
The projects Packard lists are:
“The Legislative Key Contact Program: …intended to establish a more effective and extensive contact between business people across the state and the individual legislators who represent them.”
“The Employee Economic Information Program:…intended to encourage better communication with our employees and improve their understanding of business.
“The shareholder Information Program:…intended to do a similar job with shareholders.
“The Legislative Information Program:…intended to encourage a better understanding, not on specific problems but on business principles, among our legislators.
“The Educational systems Program:…intended to improve the level of business understanding in the educational community.
“The California Economic Climate Program:…intended to develop some constructive recommendations on how we can improve the business environment in the state.
“The Association Evaluation Program:…to evaluate the effectiveness of the many business and trade associations….
“The Communication Task Force:…to provide help for us all in finding better ways to communicate with our publics.
“The Initiative Process Program:…intended to provide help in how to qualify an initiative under the terms of the California Fair Political Practice Committee.
“The Standards of Performance Program:…plans to develop some activities that will encourage higher ethical standards in the performance of business and industry.
“The Disclosure Program:…plans to assist our business enterprise in improving their policies in relation to the corporate data they disclose to the public.”
With that, Packard turns the meeting over to the next speaker, Justin Dart.
8/27/76, Copy of typewritten text of Packard’s speech – does not incorporate his handwritten notes
8/27/76, Letter to Packard from Stanley E. McCaffrey, President, University of the Pacific, congratulating Packard on his speech
8/30/76, Letter to Packard from Dalton G. Feldstein, a member of the Host Committee, saying he felt proud to hear Packard’s remarks.
8/30/76, Letter to Packard from George C. Halvorson, Dean, School of Business, San Jose State University, complimenting Packard on his speech, and asking for a copy
Newspaper clippings covering Packard’s speech
8/27/76, The Sacramento Union
Undated, unnamed, possibly Palo alto Times
Undated, column by Ron Roach, discusses Gov. Brown’s speech as well as Packard’s who both spoke at the event
Box 4, Folder 15 – General Speeches
October 27-28, 1976, Office of Naval Research, Thirtieth Anniversary,
Washington D.C.
This two day symposium was partly to commemorate the thirtieth anniversary of the Office of Naval Research, and partly to present a series of lectures focused on Science and the Future Navy. Packard was invited to be the dinner speaker at the close of the event and this is the speech he gave on that occasion. He was also asked to attend, on 10/28, dedication ceremonies of a building for the Defense Systems Management College which Packard had been instrumental in opening in 1971 when he was Deputy Secretary of Defense. There is no copy of the remarks he gave on that occasion, but this folder does contain several pages of Packard’s handwritten notes listing points he intended to make at the dedication. These notes are given below, after a summary of his dinner speech.
10/28/76, Typewritten text of Packard’s dinner speech at the close of the Symposium
Packard briefly reviews the role science has had in warfare over the centuries, starting with Archimedes, in the third century B. C., who, he says, “may have been the first to apply science to naval warfare when he devised a scheme to focus the sun’s rays on the sails of the Roman fleet to set them on fire.”
“But never before World War II, he says, “was science such a large and decisive factor. Radar, radio navigation and direction finding, electronic countermeasures, sonar, and many other technical weapons including the atom bomb were the primary measure of superiority of the allied forces that brought victory.”
Packard recalls how the Office of Naval Research was established in 1946 to “carry forward into the future the successful mobilization of science that had been done for the war…”
“The United States emerged from World War II ahead of every other nation in the world in technology. It is, in my view,” Packard says, “a tremendous accomplishment that, thirty years later, we are still ahead of every nation in the world in technology.
“And I, for one, think it is kind of important to keep it that way,” Packard says.
Packard stresses the importance of scientific research and says that the ONR managed research well in two aspects. “Careful thought was given to those areas of research which might be of benefit to the Navy, and those areas were supported at an adequate level and over a reasonable period of time. Nuclear energy, research on materials, solid state electronics, oceanography, and other fields which might have an important payout for the Navy were given emphasis.”
“ONR selected centers of promise in the fields where it supported programs, which [appeared to have] the promise of becoming centers of excellence. And many of those centers…did indeed become centers of excellence.”
“As is appropriate, this scientific knowledge has been responsible for specific and important contributions to the capability of our Navy. Nuclear propulsion of naval vessels, great advances in anti-submarine warfare, real improvements in electronic countermeasures, just to name a few, can be credited to research sponsored and supported by ONR.
“ ONR has been important for our Navy, but work of this organization has contributed to the capability of the other services as well, the Army, the Air Force, and the Marines. This is because ONR has supported a great deal of basic research that has no unique mission, but which contributes to all missions, whether they be military or civilian.”
ONR supported early work in high energy physics at Stanford, for example, and this has given us a new important tool to fight cancer. I do not know of much benefit the Navy has received from this program, but it has certainly been a great benefit to this important aspect of medicine. ONR supported a broad range of research on materials and this has contributed many things, including the performance and safety of our great commercial air transport system. This work on materials has also kept us ahead of the Soviet Union in military aircraft performance.
“ONR supported much of the early research in solid state electronics and this has added greatly to the capability of the U.S. Navy in 1976. This research in solid state electronics was a key factor in keeping America ahead of the world in electronic computers, digital calculators, in digital watches, better telecommunication, and in may other areas that have given us substantial benefits in addition to national security.
“So, as we salute ONR tonight we salute this organization not just for the great contribution it has made to the U.S. Navy, but for the contribution it has made to the world wide superiority in technology we in the United States enjoy today.”
Packard says he would like to say a word about the future in relation to national security.
“Earlier I suggested that World War II was a war of technology. We are now much further down the road. We hope there will never be a World War III, and our highest objective is to have the means to deter – to prohibit – another global war.
“Our ability to deter another world war and our ability to prevail, should such a war occur, will not be determined only by the number of soldiers and sailors we have in relation to our enemies, not by the relative number of weapons, whether they be missiles, tanks, airplanes, or ships. Our ability to keep the peace will be determined by the capability of our weapons in relation to those of our enemies.
“Our ability to preserve the peace in the future will thus, in my view, be determined by whether we can preserve the technical superiority we now enjoy over the Soviet Union, or any other possible adversary, and our ability to translate superior technology into superior weapons.”
“There is no alternative from the standpoint of national security. We must continue to support research and development at a level which will assure that we maintain the lead in technical superiority we have enjoyed over these past three decades. This will require a level of funding to keep up with inflation and it will require a level of funding that will assure all possible avenues of research are adequately cornered. Whether the 10% increase per year that is now in the planning is enough or not needs the most careful study.
“There is no doubt we can easily afford more should it be necessary. I am absolutely certain we can not afford to have less. It will take money and it will take wise management of research to stay ahead.
“The record of ONR over these past three decades has been a record of unparalleled success in the effective management of R&D. Let’s hope we can take this lesson from the past and apply it to the future.
“I know of no better way to assure that our nation – and the rest of the world – can look forward to peace rather than war, to a future of opportunity rather than catastrophic disaster than to maintain world wide leadership in science. We can never afford to be second best in science for if we let that happen we will most certainly eventually be second best in national security.
“And this must not happen, ladies and gentlemen.”
10/28/76, Extracts from Packard’s handwritten notes for his remarks at the dedication of the Defense Systems Management College
- “Pleased that Defense Systems Management College has progressed so well since its beginning in 1971
- Early in 1969 began to study problem concerning the development for new weapons not very efficient – C5A – Cheyenne
- Managed Development program
- Professional manager in charge
- Not too much, hopefully no meddling by Congress
- Good support and no second guessing by people in OSD
- Solve the problem by doing it right the first time
- Put a top professional in charge – give him authority, responsibility and support
- Procedures for attracting and developing professional managers to the services for these important jobs
- Establish College to educate more people in professional management of Defense Systems
- This college has a very important mission to maintain our national security
- The superiority of our forces and those of our allies will not be measured in numbers of soldiers, planes, guns, or ships
- The quality – capability must be kept superior
- We are the worlds leader in Advanced Technology – have been for 30 years, and must continue to be
- We have not done a very good job in converting that technology to specific new weapons. At least not as good a job as should
- New weapons systems have taken too long – sometimes obsolete before production – cost too much
- There are examples of where the job has been done right. The goal is to do all the future jobs right.
- Even though we do not do as well as we should, Soviets have great respect for our technology and for our development ability.
- No better way to assure future peace than to keep ahead in technology and to keep ahead in our ability to convert that technology into the most advanced and the most effective weapons for the Army, the navy, the Air Force and the Marine Corps
- Your role here at this College in providing the professional expertise to do this job right in the future is just as important to the future security of our nation as any assignment you can have.”
10/28/76,Copy of a second typewritten text of his speech which includes the handwritten notations he had made on the first draft
10/27-28/76, Copy of the printed program for the Symposium
10/28/76, Copy of the printed program for the dinner banquet at the closing of the Symposium
10/27/76, Copy of a printed Admission Card for the Symposium
10/27/76, Copy of a notice announcing a change of location for the Symposium
6/24/76, Letter to Bernard M Oliver, HP Vice President, R&D, from Lee M. Hunt, National Research Council, thanking him for agreeing to convey their desire to invite Packard to speak at the Symposium on Science and the Future Navy
7/5/76, Copy of a letter from Barney Oliver to Lee Hunt, saying that Packard accepts their invitation to give the dinner address at their October Symposium
7/12/76, Letter to Packard from Rear Admiral R. K. Geiger, Chief of Naval Research expressing appreciation that Packard will speak at their dinner, and giving details of the arrangements
7/29/76, Copy of a letter from Packard to Admiral Geiger asking for some information
8/27/76, Letter to Packard sending the requested information
8/27/76, Personal letter from Admiral Geiger to Packard saying he plans to visit his son at Stanford and may call Packard
9/3/76, Copy of a general letter to Symposium speakers from the National Research Council, unsigned, giving details on arrangements for the Symposium
9/10/76, Letter to Packard from William P. Clements, Deputy Secretary of Defense, telling him that a new building at Fort Belvoir for the Defense Systems Management College, is to be dedicated in Packard’s honor on October 28, 1976. He invites Mr. and Mrs. Packard to attend.
9/15/76, Copy of a letter from Packard to William Clements saying they look forward to joining them at the dedication ceremony
10/5/76, Letter to Packard from Major General John G. Albert, giving information about the dedication ceremony
10/8/76, Copy of a letter from Packard to Gen. Albert saying he and Mrs. Packard will be pleased to join he and Mrs. Albert – and he will be prepared to make a few remarks
11/29/76, Letter to Packard from Admiral Geiger thanking Packard for coming to the Symposium and asking permission to publish Packard’s banquet address in their Symposium proceedings
12/8/76, Copy of a letter from Margaret Paull, Packard’s secretary, to Admiral Geiger giving permission to publish Packard’s speech
Box 4, Folder 16 – General Speeches
November 3-4, 1976, The Place of Enterprise in a Mixed Economy, The Seventh International Forum, Aviemore, Scotland
The program for the forum states the purpose of the conference as follows:
‘The International forum of the Scottish Council has been conceived as a means of exposing Scotland to the influence of the changes taking place throughout the world. It is not intended to reach conclusions thereby. Action – except within individual spheres of influence of participants – is not within the purposes of the International Forum, but if a direction is pointed this will undoubtedly be taken up.’
Packard was designated as giving the Opening Address scheduled first on Nov. 3.
Keying on the theme of the Forum, Packard says he wants to expand and to make “a few observations about enterprise on a broader scale. I am referring to enterprise in the behavior of man,”…he says, adding that “…in doing so, I hope that I may provide some encouragement for us to take the larger view of the subject in our discussions here.”
Packard sees enterprise as a characteristic of an individual. “Groups of people – athletic teams, industrial organizations, even entire societies – display enterprise that can vary widely in its intensity. Yet I do not believe that the enterprise of a group of people can ever be any more than the sum of the enterprise of the individuals that make up the group.”
“An individual with a large measure of enterprise often has a strong influence over a group of people. Enterprise is an essential ingredient of leadership.”
“…enterprise is a most important and dynamic human characteristic when it is present in an organization of people at all levels – not just at the top.
“The most effective organization of people, whether a club, a business, a state, or a nation is a group of people with intelligence, ability, and enterprise committed to a common goal.”
And Packard gives some examples: “The Norsemen who ventured over the seas to land here in Scotland and later push on to the North American continent had enterprise.
“The men and women who crossed the Atlantic to the hostile coast of America had enterprise.
“Inventors over the centuries, including such renowned Scotsmen as James Watt, Lord Kelvin, and James Clark Maxwell had enterprise.
Great Britain and Scotland were powerful and wealthy countries in past centuries, indeed until World War II, mainly because your people had great enterprise – at all levels of your society – not just at the top.
“Japan has become a wealthy and powerful nation in these last three decades not because she has great natural resources, not because here people are more intelligent, but rather because an unusually high level of enterprise has developed among her people during this period.- and again at all levels – not just at the top.
“We talk much about the need to transfer wealth to the developing nations. This cannot be done with capital, or education, or charity of any kind. Real and lasting wealth can not exist without enterprise.
“Since in my view this appears to be the case, we should then give some consideration to the factors that bring out this quality of enterprise in an individual, and nurture it in a society.
“One of these is individual freedom – individual liberty. Enterprise is encouraged when a person is free to develop and use his talents and his energy in the way he thinks best. Regulations and regimentation are the enemies of enterprise, and we can find examples of this in all kinds of organizations.”
“On a larger scale, the importance of individual freedom in engendering enterprise is demonstrated over and over again by the comparison between the efficiency of the collective farms in the Soviet Union, and the productivity of the small garden plots that individual farmers are allowed to have.”
To illustrate this last point – that is the opportunity for individual reward – Packard gives this vignette: “Our farmer in the Soviet Union, for example, is not highly motivated to leave the warm bed of his wife on a cold winter night to help the state sow produce a litter of pigs. But it is an entirely different matter if the sow belongs to him – as will the litter of pigs.”
“Freedom, and the opportunity for personal reward, then, are the key motivating factors that encourage enterprise in an individual….And the same principles apply to all other organizations of people, including states and nations.”
Saying that “Scotland has had a great tradition of individual enterprise in economic affairs, in political affairs, and in education, religion, and other areas of human endeavor. The Scottish people have, over the period of recorded history, produced many men and women of great enterprise.
“Yet the results of private enterprise in recent years in Scotland – as well as in many other countries of the free world – have somehow failed to produce an acceptable level of welfare for all of the people. And this lack of success of free individual enterprise has kindled the fires of socialism here, as it has elsewhere in the world.”
Packard feels this decrease in stature and achievements since the United Kingdom was in its prime was “not necessarily due to a disappearance of the innate desires or ability of people, but rather one resulting from a gradual deterioration of the economic and social environment that nurtures individual enterprise.”
“We have many examples of the dynamic force of individual enterprise throughout recorded history – a force that has spurred men and women to rise above the call of duty time and time again across the entire face of the world. Without doubt, the success of individual achievement characterized by this thing we call enterprise is largely responsible for all of the progress man has made over the centuries.
“Even so, free enterprise somehow has not lived up to the expectations of a large portion of the people, even in those areas where it has been the dominant character of the economy. Indeed, a large proportion of people are living under Communistic or socialistic governments were individual enterprise is either prohibited or suppressed.”
Socialism, with its concept that a group of people could get together and work efficiently for the common good has had a great appeal over the years. But because it lacks the mechanisms to encourage individual enterprise, it can never have the potential of an individual enterprise system. Religion has made people rise above their personal interests. War, or the threat to home and family, have made people rise above their individual interests. We have yet, however, to find a way to make people put the interest of their fellowman ahead of the interest of themselves in a whole society for any sustained period. And I do not believe that we can ever do so. The opportunity for the individual – for every individual, must be established and jealously guarded, the opportunity for the individual to benefit personally in proportion to his good work.
“There may be some way to manage and direct individual enterprise to maximize the welfare of the entire society. We should strive to do this on the assumption that it can be done. But short of that kind of an ideal solution, I am firmly convinced that the welfare of your country, and of ours, as well as every other country in the free world, will be served best by supporting individual enterprise in the private sector – and encouraging the support of enterprise in the public sector to the extent this can be done.
“Experience has shown that a state owned enterprise can seldom match the efficiency of an enterprise owned and operated by individuals. It does not follow that all private business is efficient or good, nor that all state owned business is inefficient – or bad.”
“…if you concur with me that enterprise is an important human quality that has made, over the past centuries, a vast contribution to human progress – then I hope you will also agree that the discouragement and the possible destruction of enterprise would be a disaster of unimaginable consequence. We cannot afford to let that happen, and this brings us to the point of our conference here at Aviemore. What can you do in Scotland to revitalize private enterprise in your economy? And related to this all-important issue, what can we do in America to prevent the destruction of private enterprise in our economy?
“A basic starting point, I believe, is to reaffirm our belief in equality of opportunity. I would even suggest that an absolutely essential goal of our societies should be to provide everyone with an equal opportunity to develop his or her individual abilities, intelligence, creativity, in the optimum way. And to make sure there are adequate incentives to encourage the development of enterprise in the individual at all levels in society.
“We have worked very hard at this over the years in my company. One of our most important corporate objectives directly relates to encouraging enterprise among our people. It reads, ‘To help Hewlett-Packard people share in the company’s success, which they make possible; to provide job security based on their performance; to recognize their individual achievements; and to insure the personal satisfaction that comes from a sense of accomplishment in their work.’
“Our company has a division located in South Queensferry just out of Edinburgh. We have been working hard with this group of people over the last ten years or so to enable them to make a positive contribution to our company and to your country.
“They have now done so, and this year the group of Hewlett-Packard people in South Queensferry have been at the top of all of our divisions worldwide. Their growth in business and their level of production have been absolutely outstanding. They have developed a number of significant new products in their research and development laboratories which are marketed throughout the world. In fact, 80 percent of all the equipment produced at HP, Ltd. Is exported, thus contributing substantially to the U.K. balance of payments.”
“Needless to say, I am very proud of this division. It is an excellent illustration of how individual enterprise can be a tremendous motivating force for human endeavor.
“However, the prices and incomes policy in the U.K. has been, and continues to be, a serious roadblock to our ability to provide sufficient financial reward for the magnificent job our great management team at HP, Ltd. has done.
“Although the limitations proposed by this policy affect people throughout the organization, it is our professional people who feel the impact the most. After reaching a level prescribed by law, they can improve their income only by receiving a promotion into a new job, by being assigned significantly increased responsibilities on their present job, or by finding employment outside the U.K. with HP or some other firm.
“We have had to work very hard under the prices and incomes policy to maintain the high level of incentive and enthusiasm we have among our management people here. It is becoming increasingly more difficult to do so.
“I am, therefore, very much concerned about the future of our company’s operation here in Scotland unless something is done soon to restore the opportunity to reward our people for their outstanding enterprise. I am sure almost every other firm in this country is having similar problems and concerns.
It seems to me, then, this Seventh International Forum has selected a very important subject for discussion these next two days. The welfare of my company’s activity here in Scotland, and indeed the welfare of the entire British Commonwealth will be determined largely by whether the environment and incentives to encourage individual enterprise are once again reinstated.
“There can be no progress in this world without individual enterprise. We must find a way to couple this great source of strength with the aspirations and the needs of all of the people.
“I suggest to you that this is what we should talk about at the conference here at Aviemore. And this is what we should talk about whenever and wherever we address the future welfare of mankind.”
11/3/76, Typewritten text of Packard’s speech with many handwritten notations by him
11/3/76, Revised typewritten text of Packard’s speech incorporating the handwritten notations he had made in the original
11/3-4/76, Typewritten program for the Forum
11/3/76, Typewritten text of remarks, although unidentified, appear to be the remarks of The Lord Clydesmuir introducing Packard. He says the Forum Committee decided to deal with the subject of enterprise as an individual human quality.
10/16/76, Typewritten text of a speech by William E. Simon, Secretary of the Treasury.
2/5/76, Letter to Packard from the Rt Hon Lord Clydesmuir, President and Chairman of Executive, of the Scottish Council Development and Industry, inviting Packard to be the opening speaker at their Forum in November
2/20/76, Letter to Packard from Lindsay B. Aitken, Industrial Director, transmitting the above letter from Lord Clydesmuir, which he had hoped to deliver in person
3/25/76, Copy of a letter from Packard to Lord Clydesmuir saying he would be pleased to come to Scotland to participate in the International Forum
3/25/76, Copy of a letter from Packard to Peter Carmichael, HP plant manager in Edinburgh, telling him of his Forum participation, and asking that he stay in touch with the Scottish Council on the details. He also suggests they get together for some grouse shooting while he is there.
3/76, Copy of provisional program for the Forum
4/5/76, Letter to Packard from Ronald Clydesmuir saying he is delighted to hear that Mr. and Mrs. Packard will be coming to Scotland
5/10/76, Copy of a telegram to Packard from Lindsay Aitken, Industrial Director, saying he plans to be in Palo Alto May 20 and would like to visit to bring Packard up to date on Forum plans.
8/4/76, Letter to Packard from Jim Saunders, Forum Manager, sending copies of papers they have sent out announcing the Forum, and stating they have had an excellent response
10/11/76, Copy of a letter from Packard to Kenneth Sinclair in England, referring to a previous conversation they had about getting together for dinner with ”a few people from the government,” and asking if that would be possible around the time of the Forum
10/19/76, Copy of a telegram from Jim Saunders giving hotel arrangements, and asking for a copy of Packard’s speech
10/20/76, Copy of a telegram from Packard to Jim Saunders saying a copy of his speech has be sent
10/25/76, Copy of a telegram to Packard from Jim Saunders, Scottish Council, saying he has received the copy of Packard’s speech
11/9/76, Internal HP memo from Peter Carmichael to Packard sending a pair of gloves which he assumes were left by Mrs. Packard
11/12/76, Copy of a letter to James Saunders from Margaret Paull, Packard’s secretary, sending a copy of Packard’s speech which he had updated with additional comments made at the Forum
11/12/76, Letter to Packard from Ronald Clydesmuir saying that his opening address at the Forum ‘splendidly set the scene for our discussion on Enterprise.’
11/8/76, Letter to Packard from Hugh Parker, McKinsey & Company, saying ‘I could only wish that there were more industrialists in this country as clear-headed and articulate as you are’ He encloses a copy of The McKinsey Quarterly, which contains a speech he recently made on the subject of free enterprise
11/17/76, copy of a letter from Packard to Hugh Parker saying “It seems to me there will have to be a major change in attitude [in the U.K.] before any real progress can be made, but I don’t see much evidence of a desire to make a change in the right direction.”
11/16/76, Letter to Margaret Paull from James Sanders saying they would like to cover Packard’s expenses for his trip to Scotland. A note is attached [presumably from Margaret Paull] asking if it is OK to tell Sanders that no expenses need be reimbursed. The handwritten reply says “yes”
11/4/76 Clipping from the Scotsman newspaper, covering Packard’s address
Undated, Copy of a printed booklet titled ‘Technology: Adam Smith, Uncle Sam and Big Brother’
