That’s not exactly what GM CEO Fritz Henderson said to BusinessWeek, as part of the bankrupt automaker’s charm offensive. The exact quote was “I know I have to re-prove myself.” So, just as there’s a “bad” GM (the one that latched onto the federal teat) and a “good” GM (the other one that latched onto the federal teat), there’s now a “bad” Fritz Henderson (the one who weaseled his way to the top of GM’s dysfunctional corporate culture) and a “good” Fritz Henderson (the one who wants to reform the stultified system that spawned him). As we say in these parts, good luck with that. Those of our Best and Brightest who’ve seen large companies try to reform their not-so-wikkid ways will recognize the resulting lip service . . .
In the meantime, Henderson is tackling GM’s glacial decision-making process. A couple of four-hour meetings have been cut in half. Gone are the “premeetings,” when the agenda for the real meeting was set. “I don’t have time for that,” Henderson says. Delegation, never GM’s strong suit, is now an imperative. In early April, just after Treasury made him CEO, Henderson and several executives were discussing whether to add some pricey features to a future Buick model. Some wanted to save a few bucks while others figured they needed to step out and show consumers that the brand is truly upscale. After some debate, Henderson turned to Buick-GMC boss Susan Docherty. “You’re the vice-president of Buick,” Docherty recalls him saying. “Make the call.” She opted to spend the money, and that was fine with the CEO. “Fritz is creating a culture where we don’t need 17 meetings,” Docherty says. “In the old GM, we would have to hear from everybody.”
A couple of points . . .
1. Did Fritz have a pre-meeting before the meeting to decide whether or not to lose the pre-meeting before the meeting that eliminated the pre-meeting? What’s that about SEVENTEEN meetings? Is that hyperbole or “out of the mouth of bankruptcy babes”?
2. Where are the consultants? Promoting this kind of stuff—both internally and externally– is what helps America’s consultants afford/drive BMWs. Oh here they are!
Last month, Henderson hired Booz & Co. consultant Jon R. Katzenbach to help make GM’s middle managers less risk-averse and more willing to make decisions. Katzenbach and his team have begun scouring the company for mavericks adept at getting their ideas past a recalcitrant bureaucracy. Katzenbach asked each department chief to name five candidates. In most cases, he says, they aren’t top managers or people on the fast track. Typically they have toiled at GM for a long time and know how to game the system. The plan is to make their attitudes and work habits the norm, not just a rarity among the few who will buck the system.
Did I say “good luck with that” already? But rest assured that Booz & Co. understand automobiles. Well, engines. OK, “empathy engines.” Katzenberg’s paper is full of piercing glimpses into the obvious, but one of his bullet points is worth repeating vis à vis GM. “A fundamental misunderstanding, by a company’s executives, of the real nature of the customer experience their company provides.” How does Mandark laugh again? Haa ha haa, haa ha ha ha ha!!!
You want to talk about self-delusion?
In a June 1 blog post to employees, Henderson asked for suggestions and criticism. Several workers said people are afraid of challenging the status quo. When pressed in an interview on the culture of fear, Henderson said he gets criticism all the time, and then added: “I’ve never had a situation where people were afraid to speak up.” Maybe so, but that doesn’t mean managers further down won’t discourage new ideas from their underlings.
A perfect example of using “maybe so” to mean “you’ve got to be fucking kidding me.” Translation: Henderson is so insulated from genuine criticism, so drunk on GM Kool-Aid, he thinks he’s drinking coffee. A point which BW can’t resist making. Ish.
Henderson also says GM’s product planning group is just fine. Yet it has routinely missed major trends and rarely sets them. GM’s top-selling Chevrolet division, for example, is just this year launching decent crossover SUVs; rivals have been selling them for years. Plus, the product planners’ indecisiveness has led to many delays on new programs. It’s not that GM’s designers and engineers can’t work fast. They often wait for the “numbers dummies,” as GM product adviser Robert A. Lutz calls them, to hash over the research. By the time the green light comes on, GM has missed the moment.
So Lutz blames GM’s culture for his own failure. No wonder they’re keeping him on; he’s just stupid enough to blow the lid off of GM’s global incompetence. Of course, by thy bankruptcy thy shall be known, guys.
The scary thing is that Henderson likely believes his own bullshit.
Who is Susan Docherty?
One of TTAC’s B&B posted this a couple of months back, I think it bears repeating:
“This got me wondering just who Susan is. I found this peppy interview from 2007:
http://askpatty.typepad.com/ask_patty_/2007/08/getting-to-know.html
“Susan has spent more than 22 years with General Motors, and currently leads the sales, service, marketing, and distribution efforts for 16 Western states, including Hawaii and Alaska.”
Great, she presided over GM’s decline in the US’ largest automotive market, California.
“Among her proudest achievements was launching the Saturn brand in Canada in 1991, where (because of the country’s French/English bilingual polarity), they had to create a whole new way to explain that ‘different’ really did mean ‘better.’ “ Wow, stunning, she had a hand in brand proliferating Saturn into Canada, a market 1/10th the size of the US which certainly didn’t need yet another GM brand.
“She also used that understanding in her four-year tenure as Director of Marketing for Chevrolet and Cadillac in Europe. There, she led a turnaround campaign for both Cadillac and Chevrolet, and also implemented brand management programs across Europe. “One of the things we had to do to make Chevrolet and Cadillac more relevant in Europe was to go back to the history of who this person ‘Cadillac’ was, and who this person ‘Chevrolet’ was, because both of those individuals were Europeans who came to America. The moment the European consumer began to understand that those two brands had owners who had heritage that was European-based, it began to click.”” Pow, right in the middle of the stupid move of trying to take Chevy and Cadillac into Europe!
“In 2004, Susan was appointed the General Manager of Hummer, where she was responsible for marketing, sales, distribution, dealer development, and management of the Hummer brand worldwide.” Gadzooks, in the middle of the Hummer fiasco as well!
This looks like the resume of the classically dysfunctional GM executive, doing all the wrong things; then getting moved along to the next pet project.”
So, Docherty is going to help Fitz fix things at Buick?
Being a glass half full guy, I have a different take on things. I see Fritz recognizing a problem and taking steps to rectify said problem.
My take on Susan Docherty, was someone that did indeed know how, “the game” was played,and she played it well. Now that Susan has had the handcuffs removed,perhaps Ms Docherty along with Buick and General Motors might just prosper.
I,m sure that Fritz would like to flick a switch and change the GM culture overnight. Every journey starts with one step eh?
I think they could run a Burger King.
I don’t know Susan Docherty but I am all to familiar with her type.
“Her list of accomplishments at General Motors is long, and includes assignments in four different countries (Canada, Switzerland, Germany, and the United States) working with all eight GM brands (Buick, Chevrolet, Cadillac, GMC, Hummer, Oldsmobile, Pontiac, and Saturn).”
Translation: She is adept at climbing the ladder at GM and got lots of “punches in her ticket” along the way. I doubt if she had a clue as to what the customers were like for very many of the products she worked on. Sarah Palin probably understands Trucks and SUVs better than Ms. Docherty. You don’t learn your customer from a briefing book.
By comparison, I drove the type of vehicle I worked on for more than 30 years. spent endless hours talking to customers, observing how the used their vehicles, and reading information about our competitors’ offerings. Most of the vehicles I worked on were highly successful and dominated their segment.
Have you ever seen a franchise agreement for a Burger King? Sure you’re not giving them too much credit?
Typically they have toiled at GM for a long time and know how to game the system. The plan is to make their attitudes and work habits the norm, not just a rarity among the few who will buck the system.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but basically this consultant plans to neutralize the most effective people by letting the “system” know it’s being gamed, who’s gaming it, and how the game is being played.
GM is doomed. Fiatsler has a long shot chance, but GM is doomed.
Keeping the GM lifers in charge isn’t change we can believe in.
DPerkins : Glad you liked my earlier post enough to bring it up again :). https://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/gm-we-will-badge-engineer-to-the-end/
Delegation only works well if the person being delegated to is a great decision maker, or at least a good one!
GM will change under the current management, what a load of BS. In my 35 years with GM these facts became self evident:
1)only MBAs get promoted to the top spots and not on the merits of their performance but rather on their social skills(ass kissing)
2)bad decisions can screw your career path so better not to make a decision
3)if you are one of the chosen you can screw up all you want and still be moved up
4)a complete lack of people skills qualifies you to manage people
5)invent a crisis then solve it and look like a hero, better that than actually tackle a real problem and fail
6)never report the real numbers, no one checks anyway
7)never take responsibility when you can blame someone else
8)make a big show of non value added work, window dressing is more important than substantive progress
9)dissent will be punished and the toadies rewarded.
There are many more but you get the picture. This is an organization that has deluded it’s self for so long that change is impossible given the current management
@Potemkin I’ve read your comment three times and I really can’t find a reason to disagree with you.
I can’t count the number of people that would qualify for all nine of your points. Yet at the same time I can think of many brilliant folks that either quit,or just spent thier whole careers at the low levels.
In most cases, he says, they aren’t top managers or people on the fast track. Typically they have toiled at GM for a long time and know how to game the system. The plan is to make their attitudes and work habits the norm, not just a rarity among the few who will buck the system.
The fact that the most effective people have stalled-out careers on the slow track should be a giant warning sign. They need to fire their bosses and put the system-buckers in charge, otherwise all they’ve done is shine a spotlight on the “troublemakers”, the “not-team-players” so their deadweight bureaucrat lifer bosses can punish or push them out.
GM has made so many ‘turned the corner’ and ‘we get it now, honest’ statements about their rotten culture and resultant dismal products over the past three decades, it’s hard to believe anything they say.
GM will change under the current management, what a load of BS. In my 35 years with GM these facts became self evident:
These problems are endemic in most corporations, which is why it’s so ironic when “government” gets singled out so much for being inefficient or political.
The main difference in most companies is that some of them have better hiring guidelines/standards/incentives/motivations for the people in the lower branches and leafs of the org tree who end up making the bulk of the difference.
Of course that’s only reflected in the official press clips as brilliant leadership from the top when it succeeds.
@mach1 : I don’t know Susan Docherty but I am all too familiar with her type…
Translation: She is adept at climbing the ladder at GM and got lots of “punches in her ticket” along the way.
Mr/Ms Mach1, you hit the nail on the head. This is exactly how the GM I knew, worked. It always appeared as a house of cards.
In order to solve problem they must first be correctly identified. GM’s problems are not primarily due to slow decision making. GM’s problems are primarily caused by making the wrong decisions. A bad decision made quickly is nothing to cheer about.
Contrast this with the Japanese management style. By and large, Japanese companies are known for relatively slow and painstaking decision making processes which often involve long, huge meetings. I will never forget the time some years ago when I and two of my co-workers were in a room in Tokyo negotiating the details of an agreement with a very large Japanese electronics company. At one point the translator leaned over to me and said: “Horner-san, we are going to agree to your request, but we need about 45 minutes for Japanese consensus building”. Sure enough, 45 minutes later we had an agreement. I don’t even remember what the details were any more, but this was a detailed issue about how two engineering groups would share data and interact, not something big like a go/no-go decision on a product. Later that night at dinner I asked what the consensus building discussion was about. I was told that they had to discuss the implications for all the various people and departments which would be involved.
Good decisions made at a deliberate pace are not a bad thing. Leaving decisions never made is of course a bad thing. Making decisions and then changing your mind repeatedly is a bad thing. But, making bad decisions in a hurry is perhaps the worst of all.
I don’t care what GM does with future Buick models in the US. The brand is fatally damaged and is never, ever going to be a threat to Lexus. Susan Docherty is going to have yet another disaster on her resume.
Contrast this with the Japanese management style. By and large, Japanese companies are known for relatively slow and painstaking decision making processes which often involve long, huge meetings.
There’s no magic bullet to making good decisions except for getting as much accurate info on the impact as possible. This generally involves being flexible and drilling to whatever level is necessary to find all that info.
Curiously, there have been a few articles that describe insider accounts of how the current pres runs his meetings, and they paint a picture of someone who carries that due diligence. Now if GM where actually from that office as some people like to think it is, it’ll actually be better off.
I don’t think any of these executives are guaranteed to still be working at GM by the end of the year. Wait and see what the new board does before dooming the GM restructuring.
Captain Tungsten wrote:
I don’t think any of these executives are guaranteed to still be working at GM by the end of the year. Wait and see what the new board does before dooming the GM restructuring.
The cancer that is the GM Culture is deep in the organization. Changing a few suits at the top will not cure the disease. What would save GM is to root out the “yes men” many layers into the organization. What GM most needs is that which they are least likely to do. That is to push the finance types back into their proper roles of accountants (where are we spending the money?) and financial advisers (which option of technically feasible choices makes the most sense?). They need to be striped of their “controller” function. Let the engineers, designers, and manufacturing folks work together to develop vehicles that are the best that they can be.
Wait, GM has a decision making process?
To steal a scene from The Simpsons…
Fritz: Where did I go wrong? I made all the right moves, didn’t I?
GM Underlings: Yes, sir. Absolutely.
Fritz: Oh, I see it now! You’re nothing but a bunch of yes-men! I was making all the wrong moves, and you were too gutless to tell me!
GM Underlings: Yes, sir. Absolutely. Every move the wrong one.
Get rid of Henderson now! He’s a douchebag and is as useful as a turtle on a fence post.
When we talk about people who know how to game the system are we not talking about the very people who brought down GM. The gamers are the ones sitting in the managers chairs all over the corp now. Obviously the those who are not at the pinnacle of power have not played along. Three years ago GM began a program of elimination of all salaried persons who did not fit in or were deemed too old (unwilling to swallow the BS without complaint). These people for the most part were fire proof due to their senority and performance so they were pushed out by reassigning them to the crappiest jobs available until the poor sob’s retired. This jettisoning of experience was the last nail in the coffin for GM.
“These people for the most part were fire proof due to their senority and performance so they were pushed out by reassigning them to the crappiest jobs available until the poor sob’s retired.”
Ah, the mighty corporate free enterprise system doing what it usually does.
Maybe it’s just me , but does anyone else see a problem where the CEO of a copmany in as much trouble as GM is, and considering the magnitude of issues they’re dealing with such as shuttering entire brands, selling of divisions like a Sunday yard sale, is in a meeting discussing some extra features on a single car in a single car line like Buick?
It didn’t sound like an issue of ..”Engine or no engine in that car”..we need the CEO to decide.
I mean what could have been so important that it actually took the involvement of the CEO in the midst of the shitstorm?
Portholes or no portholes? Leather on the seat back or vinyl? cmon…this is ridiculous.
It’s not like it sounded as if it was go-no go for a new platform program.
Simply pulling back the curtain to reveal this makes them look like idiots.
And the world I come from calls that an extreme example of micro-managing.
My response to Ms Susan would have been something like “What in the F#$*K do you get paid to do?
Next time you bother me with this kind of nonsense you’ll be back in the secretarial pool.
Wow, Fritz can delegate to the VP of the Buick car division whether or not to include some option as standard. We’re impressed now to be sure.
Hell, just include all the features, it’s not like any of these cars are on waiting lists these days.
I want a list of where GM’s Management MBAs went to school! Those places should have warning labels on them!
GM’s resistance to product innovation is a core value, going back to Alfred P. Sloan. Sloan declared, “if our cars were at least equal in design to the best of our competitors, it was not necessary [emphasis his] to lead in design or run the risk of untried experiments.”
Their faith in that principle is not without historical reason. For about 30 years, Ford busily created profitable market categories (personal luxury, pony cars, plush Lincoln Mark III-style boats), while GM was constantly flat footed. On the other hand, during the same period, Ford’s market share remained constant and eventually started to shrink, while GM remained mighty.
In a sense, it was almost a deliberate strategy, a kind of corporate equivalent to the Muhammad Ali rope-a-dope trick: let your opponents use up their resources doing new stuff, and then step in when they’re exhausted and overwhelm them with the sheer might of your dealer body and customer loyalty. And it worked, for more than 30 years. The main reason it stopped working was that the Baby Boomers and the generations that followed were turned off by Detroit’s lackluster low-end and small cars, and ended up progressing from VWs and Hondas to BMWs and Mercedes, without giving GM’s hierarchy a second glance.
Even so, in a company as big and as conservative as GM, taking a new tack that contradicts the sainted Sloan is a pretty big step, and GM has never really been able to, any more than Disney has ever had much success making edgy R-rated movies. It’s just not in the corporate culture.
“I want a list of where GM’s Management MBAs went to school! Those places should have warning labels on them!”
It’s not so much where they went to school as the fact that degrees were valued more than performance and intelligence. Promotions were based on whether or not a person had a clue about business or managing people but whether or not the boss liked them and they had gone to his school for their MBA. Managers who can’t assess subordinates because they don’t understand the business pick MBAs so if the guy fails they can say “well he/she had a degree so they must know things”. This lets the managers off the hook. We had an MBA who was universally not well thought of by his employees, management or peers get promoted by complaining he had an MBA so why didn’t he get a promotion. On the other hand we had superintendents who were good enough to run the business for 30 years, who in the 80s, were forced to get more education or be demoted.
The promotional credo should be, don’t tell me what you know show me what you can do.