This document (sent to GM) states what we see as the obvious.
Thread Starter
Registered User
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 632
From: NC
This document (sent to GM) states what we see as the obvious.
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 13,713
From: The Golden State
He hits everything dead in the eye!
That's what H. Ross Perot attempted to do, that's what Robert Stempel attempted to do in his extremely short stint as CEO, & that's what Bob Lutz tried to do. Even Rick Wagoner himself in his way tried to change the culture by bringing in top outside car people.
Although each had varying degrees of spotty successes, they either melted into part of the system or were booted out and the system drifted back to where it was before.
The problem isn't the CEO. He has very little power on his own. There is no way GM would change simply by Wagoner stepping down. GM's problem is what I've called bureaucracy (which the author calls "culture"). The mindset, the way GM internally operates, the way GM looks at challenges.
Just on product alone, GM simply isn't very good as far as product planning. Either another company has to prove the market first, or GM has to have the government turn the screws to them, or GM simply overreacts.
GM has over and over again proven what they are capable of.
The mid 70s large car downsizing, the original Saturn, the LT1 and LSx engines, LNF & DI 3.6 engines, the Cobalt, Oldsmobile's revision in the 90s, Cadillac's complete reinvention, and just as revolutionary, the upcoming Camaro.
All of these were General Motors North America's finest achievments, but all of these were more exceptions than the rule.
It has NEVER, EVER been that GM was incapable of doing something, or having the right talent, or even an issue of money.
It's culture... and bureaucracy.
That's what H. Ross Perot attempted to do, that's what Robert Stempel attempted to do in his extremely short stint as CEO, & that's what Bob Lutz tried to do. Even Rick Wagoner himself in his way tried to change the culture by bringing in top outside car people.
Although each had varying degrees of spotty successes, they either melted into part of the system or were booted out and the system drifted back to where it was before.
The problem isn't the CEO. He has very little power on his own. There is no way GM would change simply by Wagoner stepping down. GM's problem is what I've called bureaucracy (which the author calls "culture"). The mindset, the way GM internally operates, the way GM looks at challenges.
Just on product alone, GM simply isn't very good as far as product planning. Either another company has to prove the market first, or GM has to have the government turn the screws to them, or GM simply overreacts.
GM has over and over again proven what they are capable of.
The mid 70s large car downsizing, the original Saturn, the LT1 and LSx engines, LNF & DI 3.6 engines, the Cobalt, Oldsmobile's revision in the 90s, Cadillac's complete reinvention, and just as revolutionary, the upcoming Camaro.
All of these were General Motors North America's finest achievments, but all of these were more exceptions than the rule.
It has NEVER, EVER been that GM was incapable of doing something, or having the right talent, or even an issue of money.
It's culture... and bureaucracy.
Thread Starter
Registered User
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 632
From: NC
I think the change needs to go over Wagoners head.
We need a new board. It seems that GM never changes no matter what leader they hire. Therefore, the problem must originate above that point.
From what I've heard, the board plays favorites and panders to those "factions" despite what the company needs. It's corruption in the purest form.
I really do (for the first time) fear that I will soon be a GM historian instead of a GM fan.
This is the "culture of defeat" that I preach about so much on the other site I post at (I won't name drop, because I don't know if that's allowed) I believe that the general attitude in Detroit (as a whole) is that "We WERE great and we will never be that great again."
Until GM, Ford and Chrysler can DEFEAT that CORPORATE mindset, there isn't much hope. And what's worse is, the media has (50% intentional, 50% unintentional) done such a great job of reinforcing this that even a majority of the employees on the line believe their products to be inferior.
*See my comments above*
This is what I really seem to pick up on.
We need a new board. It seems that GM never changes no matter what leader they hire. Therefore, the problem must originate above that point.
From what I've heard, the board plays favorites and panders to those "factions" despite what the company needs. It's corruption in the purest form.
I really do (for the first time) fear that I will soon be a GM historian instead of a GM fan.
Progressive cultures emphasize the future; static cultures emphasize the present or past. GM, unfortunately, lives in its past glory, as there were always better times in days gone by. Like the UK before Thatcherism, there is a deep sense that their value is their heritage, not what they are going to do tomorrow. While there have been pockets that have looked forward, and serious investments in fuel cells, there is little belief that the future is theirs to make.
Until GM, Ford and Chrysler can DEFEAT that CORPORATE mindset, there isn't much hope. And what's worse is, the media has (50% intentional, 50% unintentional) done such a great job of reinforcing this that even a majority of the employees on the line believe their products to be inferior.
In progressive societies, merit is central to advancement but in static ones it is family and connections. On this point, GM probably gets mixed to negative reviews. The sense is that one must be part of the club to advance, which usually means the right degree from the right school, the right path, and knowing the top guys, who are your mentors. Twenty years ago, GM would have been completely in the static dimension on this attribute, but there has been substantial progress in reaching out to groups that had been excluded in the past and advancing them on their merits. Unfortunately, this has been much truer for GM’s operations outside of North America and Western Europe than for these two core regions. In North America, the tradition is to pick to pick high IQ people with the right background at an early age and then to rotate them through a series of “developmental” assignments. The consequence is that the people who rise to the very top are very smart with broad experience, but they are almost never people who have truly accomplished anything; who have built something from scratch or grown a business from small to large or turned around a losing operation into a profitable one.
In progressive cultures, people identify with groups well beyond the family and into society at large. GM falls directly into the static side. Despite substantial effort to create “one company”, GM is still surprisingly full of provincialism, based on both function and geography. Very few GM employees see themselves as truly belonging to the global enterprise; almost all identify themselves with their function and then the local business unit; viewing others as ignorant meddlers and sometimes outright adversaries. While many companies have embraced the notion of the “extended enterprise” and successfully manage complex alliance relationships, GM’s investments in major alliances; Fuji, Suzuki, Isuzu, and Fiat; were all great disappointments and had little if any return.
Of all GM’s cultural problems, this might be the most crippling as it perpetuates an inward focus that is largely responsible for its hostile relations with its dealers and suppliers and, most troubling, with consumers. As a consequence of its insularity, the company has repeatedly displayed behavior that shows it to be tone deaf to society at large and much of the external world has written off the company.
Of all GM’s cultural problems, this might be the most crippling as it perpetuates an inward focus that is largely responsible for its hostile relations with its dealers and suppliers and, most troubling, with consumers. As a consequence of its insularity, the company has repeatedly displayed behavior that shows it to be tone deaf to society at large and much of the external world has written off the company.
Last edited by FUTURE_OF_GM; Feb 22, 2009 at 04:48 PM.
Registered User
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 172
From: GA
Of all GM’s cultural problems, this might be the most crippling as it perpetuates an inward focus that is largely responsible for its hostile relations with its dealers and suppliers and, most troubling, with consumers. As a consequence of its insularity, the company has repeatedly displayed behavior that shows it to be tone deaf to society at large and much of the external world has written off the company.
As much as I've always liked GM I almost want to see them go bankrupt.... I don't see how any good can come from them by just scraping together on government loans. I feel like 5 -10 years down the road they will still be in this position... just further in debt..?
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 3,123
From: Melbourne, Australia
That's a good point there. I wonder how many previous fans swore of GM all together when the killed the F-bodies..... and that's only one car model??
As much as I've always liked GM I almost want to see them go bankrupt.... I don't see how any good can come from them by just scraping together on government loans. I feel like 5 -10 years down the road they will still be in this position... just further in debt..?
As much as I've always liked GM I almost want to see them go bankrupt.... I don't see how any good can come from them by just scraping together on government loans. I feel like 5 -10 years down the road they will still be in this position... just further in debt..?
There is still a chance for GM to be SAVED. Note the last paragraph. It's written by somebody who is in love with the company, not necessarily it's past and present leaders. Unlike his superiors, he seems to be able to see past his nose.
Post Script - Bio and motivation. I have been a consultant for GM for 15 years and an employee for 9 years prior to that, and have worked at one time or another in almost every region and function. This paper has not been endorsed or supported in any way by anyone at GM; I suspect it will be harshly rejected (or simply ignored) at the senior levels but will strike a deep chord a few levels down. This is written out of the deepest affection for the company and it is an attempt to deal with a fundamental issue that has kept the company from success and is now critical to its long term viability. The people who do care about GM, and there are many, and who think a future is still possible need to stand up and try to make a difference, regardless of the short run costs.
Registered User
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 3,748
From: New England
That's a good point there. I wonder how many previous fans swore of GM all together when the killed the F-bodies..... and that's only one car model??
As much as I've always liked GM I almost want to see them go bankrupt.... I don't see how any good can come from them by just scraping together on government loans. I feel like 5 -10 years down the road they will still be in this position... just further in debt..?
As much as I've always liked GM I almost want to see them go bankrupt.... I don't see how any good can come from them by just scraping together on government loans. I feel like 5 -10 years down the road they will still be in this position... just further in debt..?
and like pointed out in the reading. Its not the product or the people in the trenches.
ITS THE BOARD!
If somehow someone?? Who could? But if they could get rid of the board of has beens. The bean counters and the buffons.
I think GM should gather a group of outsiders to guide them out of this mess.
You really think killing Pontiac is a good idea? GM's 3rd best selling all be it suffering from lack of identity car company?
ohh I could go on..
Registered User
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 2,224
From: CNY
The board is part of the problem.
But if you ask me, it's all in the middle management. GM is WAY overloaded with middle managers. Each of them trying to protect their little empires. Nobody wants to speak up or do anything outside the norm for fear of being let go. That's the problem.
If you read All Corvettes Are Red, it will boggle your mind all the layers of management there are at GM. I had a hard time keeping track of all the layers and who reported to who.
If they could strip away 70-80% of those managers, GM would be a much leaner company better able to anticipate the market instead of reacting to it.
But if you ask me, it's all in the middle management. GM is WAY overloaded with middle managers. Each of them trying to protect their little empires. Nobody wants to speak up or do anything outside the norm for fear of being let go. That's the problem.
If you read All Corvettes Are Red, it will boggle your mind all the layers of management there are at GM. I had a hard time keeping track of all the layers and who reported to who.
If they could strip away 70-80% of those managers, GM would be a much leaner company better able to anticipate the market instead of reacting to it.
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 3,123
From: Melbourne, Australia
In the author's opinion, it's THE PROBLEM. He seems to think the few layers below the board is where the real GM people are.
I suspect it will be harshly rejected (or simply ignored) at the senior levels but will strike a deep chord a few levels down.
Registered User
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 2,224
From: CNY
When it takes longer to decide when a meeting should be rather than what's in the meeting itself, you've got a problem.
Can somebody tell me how many layers there are between the designers or engineers and the people who actually make the decision to build a car?
Why does it take 18 months to design & engineer a new product but 2-3 years to actually approve it AFTER all the design & engineering work has been done?
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 3,123
From: Melbourne, Australia
Well, then he hasn't read any book or story or srticle that's chronicled GM's notorius lack of decision making abilities.
When it takes longer to decide when a meeting should be rather than what's in the meeting itself, you've got a problem.
Can somebody tell me how many layers there are between the designers or engineers and the people who actually make the decision to build a car?
Why does it take 18 months to design & engineer a new product but 2-3 years to actually approve it AFTER all the design & engineering work has been done?
When it takes longer to decide when a meeting should be rather than what's in the meeting itself, you've got a problem.
Can somebody tell me how many layers there are between the designers or engineers and the people who actually make the decision to build a car?
Why does it take 18 months to design & engineer a new product but 2-3 years to actually approve it AFTER all the design & engineering work has been done?
I would have thought that the board steers the ship. It would be relatively easy for the board to eliminate the middle layers if they were the problem... The board have had ample opportunity to address these issues.
Registered User
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 1,808
From: FL/MI
I feel the same way..
and like pointed out in the reading. Its not the product or the people in the trenches.
ITS THE BOARD!
If somehow someone?? Who could? But if they could get rid of the board of has beens. The bean counters and the buffons.
I think GM should gather a group of outsiders to guide them out of this mess.
You really think killing Pontiac is a good idea? GM's 3rd best selling all be it suffering from lack of identity car company?
ohh I could go on..
and like pointed out in the reading. Its not the product or the people in the trenches.
ITS THE BOARD!
If somehow someone?? Who could? But if they could get rid of the board of has beens. The bean counters and the buffons.
I think GM should gather a group of outsiders to guide them out of this mess.
You really think killing Pontiac is a good idea? GM's 3rd best selling all be it suffering from lack of identity car company?
ohh I could go on..
Individual by individual that you can name, explain what makes them a has been?
Believe it or not, most BOD's are outsiders in most major corporations.
Registered User
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 3,748
From: New England
Im not going to play that game of naming names and itemizing people and who they are. And who and what they do or not do. You want to know who they are look at the face of GM's problems now. And how long has this been going on? Do I need to explain anything? No I do not.
Look, You like me I have been in this section for a very long time. You know this is nothing new and actually many here complained about this for a while now in many posts.
This all just came to a head now since the economy went belly up.
And yes has beens..obviously they got to thier positions for being something in the world. But has it done them any miracle work at GM? has it turned this boat around? Do we see a company that said no to the bailout money?
Nope. We see people in control of a company that have no idea how to operate it in the 21st century...like I said ...has beens..and this is not just me saying it its been on this board for a long time. Heck some people were calling for change a long time ago yet nothing has come along.
I am angry and upset as any fan of what they enjoy would be. Does that make my ideas or thoughts right? Nope, but I do have a voice on here to say hey do something about it.
GM has right now some of the best cars out there. Yet the buying public thinks GM cars are from the 80's still. And its going bye bye.
I personally do not care who is on the board at GM. But they are directing GM to that point they are at now. Has beens..
like I said dog, not venting at you just frustrated with the info we have known all along and were just a website for a Camaro. Yet somehow we know things better than the people that are supposed to get paid to do this for a living? Something is really wrong.
and case in point..like pontiac..why is the Impala held up now??
Last edited by Caps94ZODG; Feb 22, 2009 at 09:52 PM.
Registered User
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 2,224
From: CNY
Well he has been there for 24 years... so he must know a thing or two.
I would have thought that the board steers the ship. It would be relatively easy for the board to eliminate the middle layers if they were the problem... The board have had ample opportunity to address these issues.
I would have thought that the board steers the ship. It would be relatively easy for the board to eliminate the middle layers if they were the problem... The board have had ample opportunity to address these issues.
The buck SHOULD stop with them. They should be making the hard decisions, and they're not.
What boggles my mind is why the board & the executives can't see what us outsiders see.
Or even worse, they DO see it, and choose to do nothing about it, or don't know what to do about it.
But the bottom line is, the layers & layers of bureaucracy and apathy are what's killing this company. Until this is addressed, it's business as usual at GM.