http://www.freep.com/article/2009090...rocks-GM-execs

 

Something needs to be shaken up. Some of the moves early on seemed a little less convincing. Keeping Lutz on was a good move. Nesbitt to head Cadillac is certainly a bold move, but I think a good one too. Other than that, there seem to be alot of the same *******s still running the thing. Let's hope Whitacre put the fear of god into them.

 

I pretty much agree. GM has some of the best engineers and designers in the world. It's dysfunctional leadership and chain of command has been it's biggest problem. Looks like Whitacre is slappin' 'em upside the head...

 

That's all well and good, but if taking taxpayer money to stay afloat, then ultimately going through an embarrassing bankruptcy isn't enough to "slap you upside the head" then I don't think anything will.

I hope that Whitacre included some constructive suggestions for cutting product development beaurocracy along with the rants.

 

Me too. But getting the CLEAR message through an insular corporate bureaucracy, that YOU need to do measurably better or you're fired within X weeks, will help focus the mind.

 

That certainly is encouraging reading!

It vindicates moves to step Wagoner aside (whose position was a basic conflict of interest being both CEO and Chairman)... and Henderson's position doesn't look too safe if Whiteacre's comments are a sign.

As an aside, if GM is run as a bureaucracy (which is likely) then you could probably safely say GM could cut about 50% of middle management without sacrificing workplace efficiency. I've seen bureaucracy in action and believe that only around 30% employed carry the other 70%, which are essentially just paid passengers.

 

Problem is a lot of that 70% is very good at sitting back, doing NOTHING and taking all the credit for what the 30% accomplishes and dishing out any blame or shortcommings towards them. Every job I've ever been in Ive seen a "Manager" do pretty much didly squat but sit on their big Can, and take all the credit for anything done while an assistant manager did both their jobs. If a big boss or someone had some negative comments, the "Manager" covers their butt and dishes blaim towards the assistant or lower manager for being incompetent. ITs a shame but people make their whole careers out of it.

 

Yes, you are right... but Ed Whiteacre seems like he actually knows what's really going on. Usually, middle managers are clueless at best but it seems GM will prosper under Whiteacres Chairmanship because he can see straight through the bureaucracy.

 

I LIKE this guy!

 

Sounds good but I am afraid that the whole "12 weeks for a change or else" approach might lead some lower guys to do what they've done before: cut corners by cutting costs.

 

How is being CEO and Chairman a conflict of interest?

 

Ya know...

What amazes me about this isn't how outspoken he is. But rather the GM execs being "STUNNED" that they were actually being HELD ACCOUNTABLE for their work for once...

Simply amazing.... *shakes head*

 

Yep..... amazing.

Because the "Chairman" can't fire or hold accountable the "CEO" for poor performance or poor results.

Also, the "Chairman", being the head of the board of directors likely has more influence in protecting the CEO if it's him that also holds that title whereas the CEO is traditionally someone who is outside the board of directors.

It's alot like being owner and manager of a store. Who gets the heat when things are being mismanaged?