Old Article about GM, kinda scary
Thread Starter
Registered User
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 547
Old Article about GM, kinda scary
By John Porretto
The Associated Press:
April 2003
http://www.enquirer.com/editions/200...z_smith10.html
it wasn't an overnight change then, and an overnight change won't come now (or help now for that matter). Change will need to be gradual, but is it going in the right direction?
For one thing, Wagoner seems much less than enthused, and he has made decisions based upon Wall Street pressure. GM has the potential to push Wall Street in any direction. So they should not be listening to anyone from wall street.
I think the leadership should be a team that is in it to make things work no matter what it takes, or not in it at all. Cuts in pay are a side step towards this, but I think each member of the leadership team needs to be asked what they think needs to be done to turn GM around, then you can tell if they want to be there, based upon their answers.
For one thing, decresing market share, and laying off people without first figuring out what the real roots of the problems are, is like changing the battery when you have a bad alternator. It will get the car started again, but it will die again a little bit down the road from where you started.
Everyone can come and say what the problem is, and GM has plenty to choose from. But what ones are the real problems and which are perceived problems? Such as pension costs..... that is something that was in the budget. Had to be. Money was moved from there to somewhere else, that is a problem. It would actually take a long time to figure out the true problems at GM, and the history of the good periods and bad periods will tell for sure.
The Associated Press:
April 2003
DETROIT - Jack Smith accepts his designation as the man who saved General Motors Corp. the same way he accepted the job to run the company just over 10 years ago - reluctantly.
Smith, who ends his 42-year career with GM when he retires as chairman May 1, recalled his thoughts when the automaker's directors shook up senior management in 1992 and asked him to steer the company as its CEO.
"I wasn't looking for the job, that's for sure," Smith said.
"On the other hand, it was impossible not to do my best to try to help," said Smith, chairman since 1996. "As it turned out, it wasn't as tough as it looked."
Smith, who will be replaced as chairman by CEO Rick Wagoner, paints a picture of a company that for decades was too internally focused and reluctant to change. The result was a massive bureaucracy and a dire financial predicament.
GM, the world's largest automaker, lost a record $23 billion in 1992 after a loss of $4.5 billion the previous year. The company faced slumping sales, mounting debt and a weak U.S. economy.
And while Americans were beginning a love affair with trucks and sport utility vehicles, GM's lineup was geared to passenger cars.
His daunting task: restructure a company that was running much the way it did when it was organized by Alfred P. Sloan Jr. 70 years earlier.
Smith immediately began reeling in parts of the company that for years had operated as semi-independent businesses. GM consolidated 27 purchasing centers into one. Over time, seven engineering centers became one. The company's central office, which had 13,000 employees when Smith took over, today has 1,000.
GM's total employment has fallen from 756,000 in 1991 to 349,000, although not all the reductions have meant layoffs; some were part of subsidiary sales and restructurings. "My honest take is that everyone knew we were in trouble, and everyone knew we needed to change," he said.
Today, GM ranks highest among the domestic automakers in leading quality, productivity and manufacturing surveys. The company also was the industry leader with 28.3 percent of the U.S. market at the end of 2002.
Smith, who ends his 42-year career with GM when he retires as chairman May 1, recalled his thoughts when the automaker's directors shook up senior management in 1992 and asked him to steer the company as its CEO.
"I wasn't looking for the job, that's for sure," Smith said.
"On the other hand, it was impossible not to do my best to try to help," said Smith, chairman since 1996. "As it turned out, it wasn't as tough as it looked."
Smith, who will be replaced as chairman by CEO Rick Wagoner, paints a picture of a company that for decades was too internally focused and reluctant to change. The result was a massive bureaucracy and a dire financial predicament.
GM, the world's largest automaker, lost a record $23 billion in 1992 after a loss of $4.5 billion the previous year. The company faced slumping sales, mounting debt and a weak U.S. economy.
And while Americans were beginning a love affair with trucks and sport utility vehicles, GM's lineup was geared to passenger cars.
His daunting task: restructure a company that was running much the way it did when it was organized by Alfred P. Sloan Jr. 70 years earlier.
Smith immediately began reeling in parts of the company that for years had operated as semi-independent businesses. GM consolidated 27 purchasing centers into one. Over time, seven engineering centers became one. The company's central office, which had 13,000 employees when Smith took over, today has 1,000.
GM's total employment has fallen from 756,000 in 1991 to 349,000, although not all the reductions have meant layoffs; some were part of subsidiary sales and restructurings. "My honest take is that everyone knew we were in trouble, and everyone knew we needed to change," he said.
Today, GM ranks highest among the domestic automakers in leading quality, productivity and manufacturing surveys. The company also was the industry leader with 28.3 percent of the U.S. market at the end of 2002.
it wasn't an overnight change then, and an overnight change won't come now (or help now for that matter). Change will need to be gradual, but is it going in the right direction?
For one thing, Wagoner seems much less than enthused, and he has made decisions based upon Wall Street pressure. GM has the potential to push Wall Street in any direction. So they should not be listening to anyone from wall street.
I think the leadership should be a team that is in it to make things work no matter what it takes, or not in it at all. Cuts in pay are a side step towards this, but I think each member of the leadership team needs to be asked what they think needs to be done to turn GM around, then you can tell if they want to be there, based upon their answers.
For one thing, decresing market share, and laying off people without first figuring out what the real roots of the problems are, is like changing the battery when you have a bad alternator. It will get the car started again, but it will die again a little bit down the road from where you started.
Everyone can come and say what the problem is, and GM has plenty to choose from. But what ones are the real problems and which are perceived problems? Such as pension costs..... that is something that was in the budget. Had to be. Money was moved from there to somewhere else, that is a problem. It would actually take a long time to figure out the true problems at GM, and the history of the good periods and bad periods will tell for sure.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
mark0006
2010 - 2015 Camaro News, Sightings, Pictures, and Multimedia
0
Sep 14, 2015 12:35 PM
cmsmith
2010 - 2015 Camaro News, Sightings, Pictures, and Multimedia
0
Aug 25, 2015 09:42 AM
mark0006
Suspension, Chassis, and Brakes
1
Aug 22, 2015 07:23 PM