Even if GM had it's very own "Mulally", I'd doubt that he could make the sweeping decisions or things happen as quicky as Mulally has at Ford.

 

This is where the family owned and controlled nature of Ford actually works. As long as you have the blessing of the Chairman of the Board (Bill Ford Jr.), you can pretty much do what you feel you have to do.

This is in stark contrast to GM, which is really a slave to their board.

In times like these, where decisions need to happen fast............. and be implimented even faster............ being slave to your board is about the last thing you need. Hell, you can't even get 10 people in a room to decide what they want for lunch.............. much less the direction of an entire automotive manufacturer.

I do think that a stronger leader would help though. Someone to bust through the doors, and say "This is what we need to do.............. approve it !!!"

 

It's really time for Wagoner to go, and not just because of the latest round of bad news. He's been CEO of GM since 1998 and in charge of NAO since 1994. During that time, how have GM's fortunes fared? Well:

- They've lost market share in every year except one (IIRC).
- They've lost more money than almost any company if history.
- They lost their spot as both the largest corporation in the world, and the largest automaker in the world
- On the product side he's still playing catch up, with probably at least two barely-average cars for every good one produced under his watch.
- Billions of dollars were thrown away on failed alliances and acquisitions (e.g. Fiat, Isuzu, Subaru, Saab)
- And while he's throwing money at underperforming businesses, he's selling all the profitable ones that could help balance the cyclical auto biz. How nice would it be right now, when sales are heading to the 12m range, to have the steady cashflow and profits of a Hughes, EDS, DirecTV, GM Defense, or Allison Transmission? Most smart companies get rid of underperforming units and keep the good ones ... GM does the opposite. Is it any wonder their market cap is only $13b?
- During this unprecedented slide in marketshare he still hasn't done anything to address GM's archaic brand structure ... we now have 8 divisions totalling about a 20% marketshare. And they're still badge engineering cars to compete with each other, often in the same showroom, just like in the 80s!

Maybe it would have been better of Ghosn/Kerkorian had been successful in gaining control of GM. Ghosn certainly did a lot more for Nissan in a far shorter time period than Wagoner has done for GM in most of his career. Sure, it would have involved massive changes to GM, but look where we are now. Wagoner's slow, incremental changes have done nothing but lead GM down to the brink of bankruptcy ... it's quite conceivable that massive changes are going to be forced on GM instead of being managed from within on GM's own terms and timeframe.

 

To me these are the same problems that GM has had since it stopped being the innovator and auto leader and became a company that reacts to the market and competition instead of having others react to it. It's like GM left the 60's and then started playing the auto game not to lose. That's a big difference than playing to win.
It's odd too because it's not like they stopped taking chances but when they do the idea got lost on the way to production and the bureaucracy took over and then it just became another product that GM had to support instead of the products supporting GM.

I've never been one to say cut brands as I've loved the idea that someone could start with Chevy's and move up the lines to a Caddy one day. But that plan takes discipline and it means a Caddy can't be priced in the Chevy range and there needs to be sales to support all of this.
But it seems that GM is almost a slave to them just so they can fill their showrooms. They have to spend extra money on design and production and then marketing just to make the Cobalt and a G5 "look" different so they can be sold at two different brands.
They may not need to cut brands but should cut model re-badge and overlap. If that means Pontiac doesn't get a G5 and Torrent then so be it.

 

That is very true. They need to stop talking about avoiding overlap and just do it. If the dealers don't like it I suppose they can sell something else. If you make good products, and people want to buy them then you won't have a problem finding someone to sell them to the customers.

I partly don't understand the relationship that GM has with the dealers and what their obligations are. Are they legally bound to make certain cars for them? Or are they just bound to continue making Buicks, for example regardless of how many actual models they produce?