This is not hybrid related but the President's team asked for GM's CEO to resign. I question the Federal Governement's ability to run GM when they can not even create a balance budget themselves.

 

I wonder if he'll drive out of the parking lot in an EV-1 or a HUMMER????

 

All very sad

 

Jack Welch of GE was notorious for shutting down and selling off GE divisions for poor performance proving the best way to make a small fortune 500 company is to start with a large fortune 500 company. But he also rationalized that sometimes people have to 'fired' so they can reset and focus on what they can do well.

I left GE Space Division three weeks before 34 senior people like me were laid off; six months before my unit was relocated to Florida; and a year before that Division was sold off. I was lucky because it was a voluntary separation, I fired GE. It also meant I had negotiating power but others were not so lucky. But eventually the GE managers who led us down that path were separated from the company.

I have nothing personal against Wagner nor Lutz but their decisions and hanky-panky, anti-hybrid nonsense has to cease. They have made gross errors ranging from the EV1 through painting "HYBRID" on doors because of a distorted view of the world and complete disrespect for hybrid electric buyers. It set a pattern, a lazy way of thinking that ultimately has built GM into a smaller, weaker, shadow of its former self. But he only did that with the consent of the Board of Directors.

I know GM has some solid engineers but their native intelligence and skills have been frittered away in nonsense and 'wishful thinking' that ignored the end of cheap oil. GM management and the Board of Directors had plenty of warnings, alerts and alarms but managed to make bad choices every time.

The first rule when you find yourself in a hole is to stop digging. Maybe the new GM will put the shovel away or at least dig in a new direction to get out of the hole. It will take a lot of hard work to reverse years of poor decisions and frittered opportunities.

Bob Wilson

 

Bob,

Funny you mentioned Jack Welch in your commentary on this. In the N-U-M-E-R-O-U-S times I've found myself providing someone my opinion (ok, spin) on this I've invoked Jack Welch as example. Here's my opinion (ok, spin).......

Lee Iacocca, Jack Welch, Rick Wagoner. All were at some point in time celebrated as a leader among leaders and a champion of industry. All were CEOs who notched amazing accomplishments on their respective legacies. And all were specialists.

Iacocca was the quintessential turn-around specialist. He brought Chrysler from bankruptcy to a position as a viable and competitive company. He was not, however, successful in running the company at steady-state or in a growth mode. Once the company didn't need turning around, it no longer needed Iacocca.

Welch was very skilled at Mergers & Acquisitions, particularly as a tool for company growth. Under his watch GE ventured into several business areas that its name would not suggest it should be in. But Welch was extraordinary at quickly understanding what it took to win in an industry, acquiring the right pieces to do so and fitting it into the larger GE enterprise. I don't really have an opinion on whether or not he was / would be skilled in the art of the turn-around, like Iacocca. Partly because he never really allowed himself to be in a position to require a turn-around. As you indicated, on more than one ocassion, Welch would spin off profitable business units because even though they were profitable, they were not within the top 3 in their specific industry.

Wagoner was very skilled at managing GM through a period of unprecedented global growth. GM's growth to a leadership position in China was dramatic and very successful. Ditto the growth to leadership position in South America, especially Brazil. Russia and India were in progress before the economy threw a rod. Where Rick may not have been the strongest was in the area of turn-arounds. Combine that, his steadfast refusal to consider a Chapter 11 option, and DC's need for a scapegoat and you have the events of this past weekend. Fritz Henderson, on the other hand, is well known in automotive circles for being an expert at managing turnarounds. Stay tuned.

Peace,

Martin

 

Hi Martin,

I had 13 years with General Electric Space Division, 1977-1991. As an engineering company, GE was superb and I learned many valuable lessons. But I also resigned four times, three times in the first five years. Due to a series of happy accidents, I began to recognize a pattern that told me when it was time to move on:

• signature of success - budgets are tight but engineers spend time 'playing' in the lab. We look forward go coming in early and staying late to work on our projects. There are 'support staff' but they are always in short supply and we have a fair amount of customer communication. The 'rascals' in any organization are pigeon-holed where they can't stand in the way of the engineers. The innovation factor is quite high with original work being done by multiple individuals, often out of proportion to their 'position' in the organization. Internal innovation is adopted by the organization and widely deployed.
• impending doom - budgets get fat and 'support staff' grows. Customer contact is reduced and a lot of peripheral 'training' having nothing to do with product shows up. In fact, technical training budgets seem to disappear, not that they were plentiful before, and new faces show up who run R&D budgets having nothing to do with the primary product. Engineers begin coming in late, longer lunches and leaving early and spend more time 'playing the paper game' instead of time in the lab. Reviews spend less time about the technology but more time on 'process.' Innovative technologists, regardless of their title or position begin finding jobs that do not require technical skills, anything to avoid having to make product.
• Come to Jesus - loss of a major account or other financial reversals cause 'involuntary' changes. Sad to say, by this time, everyone remaining is often just a passenger as the outcome is a coin toss. In GE, I saw it go both ways and the best times I ever had were when 'the doors stayed open.' In those times, the 'feather merchants' disappeared (and I would go to their going away parties to make sure they left!) The 'process' folks began to realize that without product, they would have no job and became helpers.

I was often sent to other GE Divisions and units to consult on computer technlogy and many times I could see the same pattern. The worst cases were places where everyone was walking around with those 'invisible knives' stuck in their backs ... places where within hours I was being told about "so and so." The stench of intellectual decay was almost palpable regardless of the how nice the facilities were. It was as if one person were putting bricks to build a house and others would come behind and steal bricks out of the structure. Insanity.

As for Jack Welch, he had the opinion that any division has to be in the top three or it was sold or closed even if profitable. This was a mistake because it meant he could not figure out how to cure 'management rot' except by amputation of the whole division. When in my opinion, the right answer is to fix the half-dozen people at the top whose leadership and style led the division to mediocre performance.

It is my greatest wish that as GM faces the future, you and yours wind up in a happy place ... a place where technical excellence becomes the touchstone. I know how rare that can be and how exciting and rewarding it is to be at the cutting edge.

GOOD LUCK!

Bob Wilson

 

Don't forget that during Wagoner's time at the helm. GM made great strides in production efficiency and quality. The average time to build a vehicle at GM plants were reduced up to 20%, bringing them inline with the Asian automakers. However, equaling the worker efficiency doesn't resolve employee/retiree benefit costs.

The quality measurements from Consumer Reports, J D Power and others, show a sharp improvement in the mid 2000s. Comparing a 2009 Accord or Camry to a 1999 shows little change in quality, all good! Comparing a 2009 Malibu or GrandAm/G6 to a 1999 and there is a world of difference.

 

Qouted from Wiki,

According to GM Chairman and CEO Rick Wagoner, his worst decision of his tenure at GM was "axing the EV1 electric-car program and not putting the right resources into hybrids. It didn’t affect profitability, but it did affect image."[17] Wagoner repeated this assertion during an NPR interview after the December 2008 Senate hearings on the U.S. auto industry bailout request.[18]

According to the March 13, 2007, issue of Newsweek, "GM R&D chief Larry Burns . . . now wishes GM hadn't killed the plug-in hybrid EV1 prototype his engineers had on the road a decade ago: 'If we could turn back the hands of time,' says Burns, 'we could have had the Chevy Volt 10 years earlier.'"[19]

 

He got a package worth >$10 million.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31913399/ns/business-autos/