GM can fix its own problems. Really. They don’t need a miracle cure or a piece of technology fabricated at MIT’s advanced labs. They don’t need a new financing scheme developed by the alchemists on Wall Street. Nor do they need Nancy Pelosi & Co. to fashion tnier future. What they need to survive can be summed-up in two words: truth and honesty. If GM would be honest about its products, finances, dealers, marketing, reliability, (lack of) executive talent, and on and on– it could begin to resurrect itself. Until and unless GM gets glasnost, the automaker will remain forever stuck in the quagmire of its own making, relegated to the support of the taxpayers, always looking for its next fix. To understand the possibilities, compare and contrast GM’s perfidy with “One Ford”….
Like GM, FoMoCo was a company headed for extinction. Sales, market share, profits, product competitiveness, branding– Ford was outclassed, out-maneuvered and out of gas. Unlike Rick Wagoner and his Board of Bystanders, Ford CEO and Chairman Bill Ford and the Ford family admitted the inevitable. In the summer of 2006, they looked outside the company– and the industry– for a well-seasoned executive to replace the family scion. Ford brought in ex-Boeing exec Alan Mulally to clean house.
Ford’s hopes for survival didn’t– and don’t rest upon CEO Alan Mulally’s engineering or union-wrangling expertise. It’s Mulally’s leadership, his impact on Ford’s culture that will leave the automaker the last man standing.
Under Mulally, Ford has publicly acknowledged and accepted the fact that the days of owning 25 to 30 percent of the U.S. new car market are gone. Profitability must come at just 15 percent. To achieve this new, more limited goal, Mulally has attacked Ford’s culture of complacency and infighting. By all accounts, Mulally demands a “truthful and honest” assessment about the company’s health. And he demands that his managers demand it.
We’re seeing the realization of this new paradigm. Ford cars more-or-less equal Toyota and Honda products’ reliability. Ford is also matching factory production to actual demand–rather than bogus sales forecasts from marketing and finance. And although Ford is talking-up an electric car that they don’t have, they understand that their survival doesn’t depend on a “leap of faith” technology. They’re looking for single, double and triples, not home runs.
GM remains stuck in its past. Whether it’s the Volt or a Volt-based Cadillac or HUMMER’s non-prospects, everything they do is shrouded in a fug of hype. Lies, half-truths and deceptions are perpetuated upon journalists and the public until they become the truth– within GM. Every statement they make– whether by marketing, dealers or top executives-– is inherently suspect. Even when the hype is demonstrably false, GM clings to the spin like grim death. Literally.
To wit: today’s NYT runs a piece by Bill Vlasic entitled “Wagoner Says G.M. Is Working on an Overhaul Tied to the Bailout.” In the story, CEO Rick Wagoner states that GM is focused on meeting the requirements of the bailout loans. He asserts that GM can become financially viable via labor cost reductions, debt swaps and reductions in brands/dealers. Wagoner provided no specifics, no proof, no concrete plan. This despite the fact that he has less than 40 days to submit the plan to Obama’s as yet unannounced car czar.
Wagoner leaves a decade of devastation in his wake. He has destroyed GM shareholder value, shed tens of thousands of high-paying jobs, sold-off once-valuable assets, lost billions on misguided foreign entanglements, failed to assure proper accounting practices and placed his company in the hands of politicians. And yet even now, he can’t tell the truth.
Rick Wagoner knows that GM can’t possibly meet the federal requirement for the $13.4b– and the rest– worth of taxpayer loans. With Uncle Sam’s wallet wide open, the mandated sacrifices will not occur. Period. Why not tell the truth to the company, its dealers and suppliers, and, above all, the American taxpayer?
If GM is to survive, Rick Wagoner should come clean. He should tell everyone that Saab, HUMMER and Saturn are toast. (How much “strategic review” do you need to figure that out?) That it’s impossible to negotiate a complicated debt-for-equity swap for $63b in two months– outside of a courtroom. That there are significant problems in amending an existing labor contract– outside of a Section 1113 motion in bankruptcy– that would overturn decades of hard-won labor gains. Wagoner should admit that GM will need additional government assistance in 2009.
The simple truth is that aGM bankruptcy was, is and will be the only path to resurrection. As a smaller company, shorn of most of its debt and burdensome labor agreements, GM can be a smart and strong competitor in North America and around the world. But everyone at GM needs to be honest and speak the truth. The truth will set you free. Just ask Alan.
GM has no reason to come clean. Congress has already said they will not allow them to go under. GM can do whatever they want and the government will bail them out, again. Talk about an enabling entity (government handout) that is being suckered by the addict (GM, and for the most part, Chrysler). And neither sees any changes coming their way in the immediate future.
Engineers are trained to deal with reality. Great engineers combine inspiration with analysis to create things. Great engineering managers do all of that while being effective at leading teams of smart people. I will bet on the accomplished engineering manager/leader any day over the finance/MBA person any day.
I agree with Jolo. I iunderstand that the Car Czar may not must call the loan due if he/she does not approve of the new business plan. What’s the odds of that happening given the fear of the effect of withdrawing the nipple.
To re-itterate, the bailout sealed GM’s doom. And I cannot picture a world where Obama will not foster and broaden the enablement.
jolo is on track.
They have no reason to change, they will continue to produce “good enough” products rather than strive for excellence.
The products will be “good enough” for the faithful to continue to defend and buy but not “good enough” to gain market share (their reliability curve has flatlined/degraded slightly, in the last 5 years a bit below the industry average, THEY DO NOT GET IT).
Bunter
The irony is that the federal bailouts of GM and Chrysler will keep two moribund companies on life-support long enough for these walking dead to compete against the one company that has a chance to make it on its merits, Ford.
So now we get to see the corrupt dragging down the virtuous, courtesy of the wisdom of our legislators and bureaucrats. A great example of the law of unintended consequences.
By the way, they can add me to the list of consumers who will never consider a GM or Chrysler product again.
I think it is abundantly clear at this point that GM’s business plan is to extort money from Washington. Otherwise, the BoD and Red Ink Rick would he gone. Until Congress gets the balls to do the right thing and cut GM off, then nothing will change.
Without the bailout GM & Chrysler would already be dead. With it they will stumble onward in a vegetative state until Washington sees fit to pull the plug.
What will happen in 4 or 6 years when the Dems don’t control both ends of Pennsylvania Ave?
Is it time to start a Ford Resurrection Watch?
I will bet on the accomplished engineering manager/leader any day over the finance/MBA person any day.
Typical engineering arrogance.
No, really. It’s the same issue accountants have: an assumption that the profession allows them some inherent knowledge into the best practices of every industry. I’ve dealt with good and bad versions of both, and bad engineers are just as bad, for exactly the same reasons, as bad accountants. Good versions of both are excellent at their core competencies and know where their boundaries and limitations are. The best leader I’ve worked with was neither (he came out of Sales), and was very good at motivating people and making informed decisions.
Engineers are no better—and often much worse—than an accountant in the same role. Engineers, if they’re left unchecked, will burn through money and develop an awful arrogance about the product planning process (basically, “I know what the customer wants, because it’s what I want”). Accountants in charge can mean the slow and dull death of a company; engineers can mean the quick and exciting version of the same.
The point isn’t to have an engineer, or a car guy, or a sales guy, or a janitor, as CEO, the point is to have a good leader, someone who can develop a real strategy, and motivate and coordinate those under him/her. Engineers are no more likely do be able to do this than anyone else, despite that they (like accountants) often think they can.
I would love this. I drive and love a 2002 STS…
GM knows that
1) The original Mexican Crank Sensors are Crap
2) All of the trunks leak
3) The British (Lucas? please no) made ignition switches last 80,000 miles
4) The motor mounts last 2 years if you are lucky
5) The water pump covers will pit and leak after 5 years even if you change the coolant regularly.
What has GM done to recognize any of these issues? On there flagship cars no less? ZERO.. How long did Toyota “sit on their hands” over the crankcase sludge issue? Just over a year. You can measure their response in MONTHS… How long did it take GM to fix leaky head gaskets on NorthStar V8s? 11 YEARS.
GM has NEVER been honest with their customers, they have NEVER been honest with their products, and they have NEVER been honest with their Finances… Why would we expect them to start now?
@Cicero, nicely put. As a current GM customer (2002 GMC Sierra, best truck I’ve ever owned) I’m sad to say that I’m heading towards that list as well.
Check out Mulally’s bio on Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Mulally
I think his background explains a lot about why he is a good leader. He’s an engineer, and as a contributor to big projects he’s undoubtedly been trained to understand true customer needs and requirements while building a product to a schedule and budget.
There’s no magic involved in being a manager of a product development and manufacturing organization. You just need to figure out how to build a product that customers are willing to purchase with real money. The key is getting your own organization the hell out of the way.
The turnaround at FOMOCO began prior to Alan Mullaly being hired. Bill Ford started it well before he hired Mullaly; he just needed Mullaly to take the process further than he was able to move it along.
Ford has been building better quality vehicles for most of this decade, and as each model is replaced in the cycle, the quality has increased substantially. Don’t believe me? Compare the interior fit and finish of any Ford prodcut built in the late 90’s to a Ford product built even as early as 2003. You can literally see the difference with the naked eye. It’s why I chose a Focus ZX5 for my wife in 2005. It had way more standard features for a much lower price than competing cars from Japan or Europe, yet the quality seems to be equal to that of a Corolla or Civic, and better than anything else in it’s class. Four years later the cars still looks and sounds and runs like new. Not one major warranty issue so far (just a few minor issues, which were promptly dealt with by the dealer) and not one single complaint from me about any issue of quality. I know, I know what you’re going to say, that I’m only a sample group of one owner. However, to anybody who asks me advice about a new car purchase I recommend that they check out Ford.
Ford is changing the perception one customer at a time. It’s working. Why do I say that? Because it worked on me, and I am Joe Average. I am a median income earner, in fact my whole life has been spent on the median; I am the customer they need to reach, and I think that Ford is doing that.
FOMOCO “gets it”, and has been “getting it” since Bill Ford became CEO.
Red Eye Rick and Bob Putz don’t get it, never have got it and never will get it, and until they and their ilk are run out of GM, GM will not “get it”. I’m not going to talk Chrysler, because I believe it’s over for them, and I’m just waiting on the Fat Lady.
Ken,
Well said, as usual. Your editorials are the ones I enjoy the most in TTAC (sorry Robert Farago, but you insist with saying the Truth). As a consumer, I’m now considering doing what just a few years ago I thought unthinkable: buy a Ford instead of a Toyota. And I know I’m not alone…
If Ford can keep improving reliability and style with its current prices, and Toyota and Honda keep their own products overpriced, I don’t see any reason why people would not move back to Ford (UAW/CAW or not, I don’t care).It just makes sense.
Excellent editorial. To fix a problem you need to acknowledge the problem. GM’s management like many GM fans refuse to acknowledge the problems. This will not change with the current management.
Bailout or no bailout I truly don’t see GM surviving at all.
I second Monty. I have a 2005 Focus ST with 85K on it and it is still rattle and squeek free. No warranty issues and still a hoot to drive. Just about as much fun as you can have with your clothes on. Go Ford!!!! Based on this experience we will be looking at trading my wife’s 99 4Runner for a Flex this spring.
Your dead in any business when the customers don’t want your products. Chrysler is first and GM second in that position. GM is so large there few hits in individual models do not float the rest of the dead company. It started when the residuals (resale value) started plummeting for Detroit cars. in the past Chrysler was always weakest with Ford next and GM the strongest. GM has leveled this playing field, and their stuff used is also in the toilet. The poor used values make selling new nearly impossible, as the out money the customer needs becomes greater. Enter the cash back factory deals, and cheap financing to try and close the gap. This robs profitability down the road and chokes off the R&D money you need for future product. GM and Chrysler are so many cycles behind the foreign guys, it’s hard to put a number on it. One thing is cerain, the longer they divide what little R&D money over too many products, the quicker they die. With this economy it is impossible to justify more than cadillac and chevy cars and chevy trucks. The longer it takes to get there and I don’t care about the legal reasons (nor does the markeplace) the darker the future for GM.
I agree with the folks praising the new Fords. I got an 06 Focus for my wife. The car itself is fine. The dealer on the other hand was slime. Replaced the HVAC fan motor three times because he wouldn’t admit there was a leak that required pulling the radiator out to fix. Pissed me off terribly. I finally took it to an outside repair shop who fixed it right away and sent the bill to the dealer. Took a great deal of fighting and involvement of a regional Ford office to get the dealer to pay for it. To Ford Corporations credit, the regional office was great and backed us up and put pressure on the dealer right away. I would buy another Ford, but certainly not from that dealer. Ford really needs to crack down on their dealers. My son has a Hyundai. When it needed work on the alternator (under warranty) they gave him a loaded current model Sonata as a loaner for 2 days. Great dealer experience. This is what the domestic brands have to get in step with.
Psar,
You make a good point. I would still say you are more likely to find a good leader among the ranks of the non-MBA and finance types. Accountants, I don’t know about, but here is my problem with the MBA and finance types.
The average MBA or finance corporate climber is skilled at getting money and energy flowing towards his desired goals. That can be used for good or bad, but is mostly directed at self interest. Same for engineers in many cases, they do tend to design what they really want to see built. However, when the engineer fails, the results tend to be obvious, and everyone learns from that. When the MBA fails, it gets blamed on the engineer or someone else a lot of the time. Same with us sales people.
If you don’t buy from us, we blame the product, but if you do buy from us, we take credit. It’s no jedi mind trick, but it does let you stay positive enough to keep going.
I may be oversimplifying reality, but for the majority of times, I see engineers tending to be practical and results driven people who learn throughout their careers to make better decisions. Like you said, they may strive for silly goals, but those guys don’t tend to rise up or are more easily kept in check by the board.
OTOH, MBA types are results driven, but without the practicality. They don’t really seem to be able to nail down why any particular action was successful. That makes it harder to repeat the successes. It also makes them hard to work for.
Lastly, there is the effect that promoting the MBA side of the shop has on the whole organisation. Tempering the engineers with MBA and finance restraint works great, but when your company ceases to be the place where the engineers and sales types really run the show, your company starts to die a slow death. A lot less companies die from great product, bad business practices than the other way around.
GM is getting it, too slowly but it is. You may not like the styling of the new Buick, but i challenge you to go and take a look at the new La Crosse and the Equinox as examples of how GM is moving forward and ahead of Toyota, Honda and Ford in terms of quality, fit and finish particlularly on the interiors which you’ll see. Reliability will improve, is just the old problem of perception again. Things are moving in the right direction.
My first question is: “Why is Rick Wagoner still in charge?”
Logic tells us that the people that got Detroit into this mess are not the best suited to get it out.
I have reluctantly come to the conclusion that only bankruptcy will bring the clean sweep that is so desperately needed. Plus the opportunity to shed dealers and renegotiate labor and supplier contracts. Nothing less than bankruptcy can achieve this as easily (or as quickly.)
It seems pretty apparent that Rick Wagoner is counting on some hits from the TARP-pipe to keep things going. This could be the final act of destroying General Motors. I don’t know if Rick is aware of this, but the more TARP he hits the more he does not have a say in running his company. More and more – at least through this year – his new, real bosses on the Hill will be developing ideas they want to see GM implement as a string for another hit from the pipe. These ideas will not be driven by any interest in making GM a viable operation that makes vehicles. These politically-motivated initiatives will consist of pie-in-the-sky efforts to develop “alternative energy” technologies for cars, and protection of the UAW interest in the status-quo regarding labor arrangements. Both of these things are not intrinsic to GM’s potential for future viability, and leave alone or even encourage the culture that is destroying the value in the company. Ironically, GM as a corporate culture has honed these skills well over the past decade already.
The first sign of this I imagine will be in about, oh, 28 days from now or so. It will leak that The Plan for recovery will consist primarily of some truly contorted financial arrangements that the other parties (creditors) will never agree to, and at the center of the whole plea for another TARP hit will be the Volt. You can probably expect to see some rough sketches or other hints of a Volt crossover, Volt truck, Volt-van…hell, rename the joint General Volt. Might even be some hybrid action in there as well. As a consolation to the reality-mongers, they might just kick Saturn out of the family. Saturn is a refugee and I can see real buyers who want in this auto-market seeing a chance to pick up one of the best dealer networks in the country for peanuts.
The end result though is politicians agree to kick GM down another rock for the pipe, with of course a serious expectation for Voltage. There will be Nancy Pelosi driving – and Ron Gettelfinger riding shotgun – in a Volt around the Capitol or some such photo-op that gets exposure on C-Span. At that point, the company will no longer be in command of its own destiny no matter who “runs” GM past Rick’s tenure.
Lies, half-truths and deceptions are perpetuated upon journalists and the public until they become the truth– within GM.
Ken – From someone who knows, you hit the nail squarely on the head. The best example is the quality parity myth that was/has been perpetuated as soon as the Century and Regal got rated highly by 80 year olds in JD Power.
BostonTeaParty – “GM is getting it”
No. They aren’t. That line is pulled out every single year at the auto show as they point to 2 of their 60-some odd nameplates as shining examples of the new GM. Remember, the 2005 Lacrosse was held up as a sign that they were ‘getting it’ too.
BostonTeaParty : GM is getting it, too slowly but it is.
Nope.
Look at the reliability data out there. Sure they have a few high points. But whether you look at CR, JDP VDS or True Delta you will find the majority of their vehicles are below the industry average. Many are near the bottom.
Look at the last 3-4 years results, the trendline for them is not up. Flat, maybe down.
For contrast look at Ford and Hyundia over the same period. Dramatic improvements. They get it.
GM, getting it? Puhleeeze. There is no statistical evidence of an overall improvement.
If Hyundia and Ford can do it then there are only two reasons why GM hasn’t. 1. They don’t know how. 2. They don’t want to.
That’s rather the point here.
Sure GM is making some better designs with nice interiors.
So do plenty of companies that don’t tend to create a long term relationship with their service personnel.
If your buying Debt 3 support the guys that ARE changing for the better. Buy Ford.
Regards,
Bunter
Great editorial as usual. And lots of sense in the comments (as usual).
An observation – this is the first time in many a long day that I’ve read that folk are (gasp) praising Ford and actually saying they’d recommend and even buy a Ford. Ties are changing.
Got to admit that I’m staggered that the folk at GM didn’t see what’s been happening at Ford the last 2 years and try and do something, anything. Do think Rick knows where all the BoD skeletons are?
Bunter1: GM, getting it? Puhleeeze. There is no statistical evidence of an overall improvement.
Perhaps all GM vehicles are improving, but so are the vehicles of other manufacturers, so GM is not improving its RANKING. It’s entirely possible that GM’s reliability relative to that of other companies may not be improving, even as its vehicles get better.
And, for the record, the new Malibu has received good reliability ratings from Consumer Reports. The problem is that there are still too many dogs in the lineup.
I choose Elephant Butte.
“GM getting it”. Surely this must be coming from a brainwashed GM robot employee!!
My reading of trough history tells me that once the snout is in it very seldom comes out. Like to think I’m wrong but……seldom happens.
cdnsfan27,
Wait a few months for the Flex to get the EcoBoost motor. More efficient, more power, what’s not to like?
Re: CEO qualifications – a good leader needs to check his/her functional role/responsibilities at the door when engaging in strategy. Effective strategic leadership is more about culture and communication. Jim Collins describes this in “Good To Great” as being a “paradoxical blend of humility and will”. Of course, Collins also uses Circuit City (circa 2001) as one of his positive examples in that book ;)
FWIW, my employer’s previous CEO was an engineer, and he seemed pretty well aware of financial issues (and how the lower-level engineers were good at spending money). It’d be a bad idea to use too broad of a brush when attempting to paint stereotypes of CEOs based upon their previous career experience.
What’s clear to me is that the folks one step lower on the foodchain need to be damn well versed in their functional roles; i.e. engineers guiding product development. It’s far less clear what guys like Ron Zarrella were good at doing.
Wagoner is an interesting fellow in his own right – he seems poorly suited to strategic leadership, and has yet also failed to use his prior background in finance to ensure that at least this part of GM is well-managed. Coming clean also doesn’t seem to be a skill in Wagoner’s toolbox – GM need to have its come-to-Jesus moment in spring 2005, and its failure to do so had made life much tougher for a lot of people in the industry.
re: leadership qualifications…
This could probably be a whole other topic, but what makes a good leader? Does the piece of paper hanging on your wall matter at all? Can leadership be learned at all, or do you need to be born with it?
Which is better (or worse), a buisness degree and an MBA, or an engineering degree and a technical masters degree?
Personally, I’m a mechanical engineer looking to go to grad school. To advance my carreer, it’s been recommended that I get an MBA. But I think I would get more personal satisfaction out of a masters in thermodynamics or something similar.
So I’d like the opinion of the B&B. Two part question: Is an MBA really that helpful to have? And does an MBA give you any kind of leadership authority/ ability?
GM will continue to operate as it has for the past 20 years – giving us what they think the truth “should be” and not what is. It all boils down to the fact that there has been so little accountability or responsibility put forth onto their management for their set backs and deception. Nope GM is the same as it was before the bailout and they will be the same after – and they will not be honest as it is just not their culture.
@ Aeroelastic:
Engineering Masters vs. MBA really depends on what your career goals are. Engineering Masters will allow you to assume technical rolls and advance your career to a certain point. An MBA gives you knowledge of the business side of the equation that often times engineer don’t know/understand. An MBA will allow you to advance into a management roll easier than a technical Masters degree.
At the same time, leadership can’t be learned through an MBA. An MBA will simply provide the tools necessary to understand the financial, accounting, strategic marketing, etc. end of the business.
Personally I feel that an MBA on top of at least an undergraduate degree in engineering builds great potential for management of companies focused on tangible products (not finance based companies like banks).
(Fair disclosure: I have an undergraduate degree and Masters degree in Engineering).
@ tcwarnke :
Thanks. I’m still going through some internal debates, but leaning towards MBA. I guess I can always pick up an engineering master later, right?
This could probably be a whole other topic, but what makes a good leader? Does the piece of paper hanging on your wall matter at all? Can leadership be learned at all, or do you need to be born with it?
That’s such an incredibly complex question. Often times it’s situational: the kind of person who can lead Toyota or Matsushita is not the same kind of person you want leading General Motors or IBM, let alone Bank of America, Deloitte, Proctor & Gamble, Apple or the like. Some organizations what strategists, other motivators, still others cost-cutters or product visionaries. The problem is that, and this is especially the case in North America, too many companies bought into the Jack Welch methodology without really thinking about the differences between GE (the Mother of Horizontal Conglomerates) and their industry.
Take, say, Carlos Ghosn: he was exactly who Nissan needed when they were bleeding red ink and lacking focus, but he’s not who they need right now. Kat Watanabe’s conservative stewardship may not be what Toyota needs now—it’s hard to say. Steve Jobs is an example of someone who was very ill-suited to Apple in it’s first decade, but perfectly so now.
And then you get into people like George W. Bush or Ronald Regan who are a textbook leaders, provided you read the right textbook.
I think it’s clear that Rick Wagoner, his directors and many underlings (Lutz and La Neve in particular), are not the people GM needs now. Alan Mullaly is ok, but I question if Mark Fields is a good fit for Ford (he seems hit-or-miss). I don’t think Bob Nardelli is fit to be night manager at McDonalds, but obvious Cerberus feels differently.
Engineering Masters vs. MBA really depends on what your career goals are
I think a lot of people confuse MBAs and CA/CGAs, including the people who hold both designations. Engineers can be MBAs; Accountants can be MBAs. I’ve met more than a few people with PhDs in mathematics and/or computer science with MBAs. Most MBAs start life as B.Comm and/or CAs; the MBA is really a polishing on existing credentials, much like you might have a B.Sc in Environmental Science or Biology, then go to law school and practice Environmental Law. It’s a complementary degree with an emphasis on business, and I think it’s just coincidental leanings that most MBAs tend to be accountants.
I’ve never met someone who holds a CA (not MBA) and a P.Eng or PhD.
I’m sure they’re out there, but I haven’t met them. I think the problem what MBAs often have is that they tend to groupthink with other MBAs, or only listen to the MBA perspective. That’s not an MBA thing, as much as it is a Bad Leader thing. I’ve seen engineers do it, if not as much, and I see it all the time in medicine and disturbingly often in law.
Leadership can be very much a two-way street. As a leader, you need to recognize who and when you’re actually able to lead. A lot of leaders can’t, or wont do this.
I have masters degrees in computer science and business. I recommend that if you have a technical degree that you supplement it with the cheapest, quickest part time business/finance degree you can find. MBA coursework is not rocket science; if you have an engineering degree you are most likely overqualified. Pick up finance with lectures and by reading the book. Marketing is squishier and you should only go there if you can focus on the technical side. Marketing of technical products is unique and most business programs focus on the consumer; where your background is less valuable.
If you are a truly excellent student, strongly consider MIT’s LFM program, which is a joint production of the engineering and business schools. Graduates are in platinum demand everywhere.
With that being said, most of the 25% of my MBA class that were engineers went on to Wall st. to places like Lehman Bros. and Bear Stearns.
I work at General Motors and am an Hourly worker. I can tell you what GM needs. What GM needs is to shed itself from giving their salary workers company cars for one. Then they need to do an audit and eliminate salaried workers that do not know the car business. We have upper managers that were trained in college to be electronic wizzes in charge of production areas and we have salay workers that no nothing at all an were brung on do to their parent was salary. In simple terms we have alot of nepotism and alot of wasted monies. The workers now work in tems as the japanese we have adopted all their strategies,but, if managers cannot manage then its a waste. Also all special appointed jobs should be eliminated. GM needs to do a plant to plant audit. and look at themselves. The hourly worker has bled enough.
Given the steady year-by-year decline in GM’s market share and balance sheet, how has Wagoner held on? Would he still be there if there had been a credible replacement? Was bringing in Lutz a brilliant move to improve GM’s products or a brilliant move to preserve his position even while failing? Jack Welch has said that the number 1 priority of the BoD is to have a strong successor in place. Of course who picks the BoD? Wagoner has failed every stake holder other than himself, but he has served himself very well indeed. A well worn practice of incompetent CEOs is not allowing a credible successor to exist. This practice has been used by royalty for centuries; England is a good example.
I’m not as pessimistic as others here about the political reaction to GM’s coming farce of a viability plan. Even without existing wide spread public doubts about the bailouts, both banks and Big 3, there will be lots of opportunity for grandstanding Republicans to jump in front of the cameras and spout off about their new-found concern for deficit spending and the threat to the American way that unions represent, even without bailout money ripped from the desperate grasp of non-union tax payers.