I've been thinking about all the attrition of good people at GM lately. People which have made a difference at GM. When all is said and done, and we come out the other end of all this, who will move this company forward? Will there be enough leadership, morale and just plain esprit de corps left after all of these purges? Or will we have a company of spiritually crushed zombies simply taking orders from the government?


In many ways I'm much more worried about GM after restructering than even the mess they're in currently. Who will lead? Who will motivate?


AE had this quote today:


Honestly, I can't wait for GM to declare BK and get on with it.

 

The first, last, and primary importance of any and all businesses is making profit.... staying solvent. Money and finance is even MORE important than the product because without money, everything comes to an end... no matter how great a product you have.

The people... the so called government bureaucrats, as some here popularly call the Automotive Task Force... who are crawling through the car companies, making demands on them, are primarily finance people with a few assorted self made billionaires providing input from the outside.


Most all of the points and demands they are making on the Auto industry as a condition of recieving taxpayer dollars is, perhaps not shockingly, the exact same issues, points, & questions that just about every member on this board whose been here for a long time has brought up at one time or another. Overreliance on large trucks and SUVs, union pay and benefits, cheap interior materials that give a low feeling of quality, not selling the "good stuff" here, and so forth. I remember a few years ago, someone here (one of the ther old timers, not sure who) sounded the alarm about GM's debt load while another wondered aloud on what would happen to car sales when ARMs readjusted. I'd wager there are very few MBAs on this site, but they saw things that seemingly the top executives at our car companies ignored.


The people whose jobs at risk have gotten to this point due to the decisions of people running the show at these car companies over the past decade, not from the past 22 days of government conditions for additional aid. The people who suffer most, you rightly point out, are the people who don't get paid 10-20 million plus to walk out the door, and in most all instances are highly talented and very valuable people in their field.

But to say that the result will be a group of crushed zombies taking orders from the government, while a theme that would make for another Orson Wells "1984" like book or fodder for the government-is-always-evil group, the reality is that:

* If they're going to be zombies after June 1st (or May 1st in Chrysler's case) they were zombies before government involvement, and...

* They are DAMN LUCKY the government got involved because they would be on the streets otherwise.


After years of looking at the government as the adversary because of increasing fuel and safety requirements, it very hard for people to actually grasp the fact that the General Motors Corperation would have been out out business for 5 months, and Chrysler would be shutting down by now if it wasn't for the government stepping in.

Also, it's extremely difficult for people who spent most all their adult lives against government involvement in the business world seeing representatives of the government pointing out the problems with the auto industry that in many instances, they themselves pointed out over the years.


Finally, there's also alot of internal conflict in some who believe in no taxes and/or severe accountability when taxpayer funds are used to make that belief jibe with that conflicting belief that the government should simply give US auto companies whatever money they want with no oversight or strings attached.

If anyone believed:

1. GM was a bloated bureaucracy that had difficulty getting new cars to market.

2. Chrysler was a truck company that made subpar cars for rental companies on the side.

3. Unions were paid too much.

4. That GM had too many divisions and Chrysler seemed rudderless outside minivans, Rams, and the LX cars.

5. That taxpayer money should be used only with extreme accountability

6. and finally, that General Motors (and even Chrysler) shouldn't wind up making the Ford Motor Company the only car maker based in the United States,

....then the current events, and the forced changes that these companies must do to survive should be something we realize will make a better car company.

Then again.... General Motors and Chrysler can always refuse to take taxpayer money, give back the loans, and go without.

Only the truely naieve believe that option is better.

 

I think that you're missing my point Guy. The concern here is not whether GM should or should not accept taxpayer money and government oversight. The concern is that some really great talent is being gutted from the company.

Take people like John Heinricy, Bob Lutz, Jim Taylor, Tom Wallace and multiply by 1,000. That's the sort of brain and leadership drain GM is in the middle of right now.

I guess an anology would be comparing GM to a military unit which has suffered high casualties in intense and confused combat and is now a broken force. Some salty NCOs or brilliant junior officers will have to materialize and assume leadership here, and pull this battered rabble together if this unit is ever to be combat capable again. If not, it will need to be disbanded.

 

We can only hope that whomever takes over the reigns at GM (and Chrysler for that matter) actually listens to us consumers. Regardless of what some bean-counter says or what the government wants, it is we, the consumers, who let the manufacturers know which direction they need to go in order to be successful. We do this by purchasing their products. If GM refuses to do this, they can only fail in the long run.

As far as infusing passion into the new GM, they are going to need folks that are also enthusiasts. People who live, breathe and die GM products. Then on top of that, they are going to need successful project people with strong business sense. People who have a history of delivering a project on time and within budget, yet are smart enough to figure out how to infuse the passion into a profitable product. Finding the right people who are both enthusiasts and successful business people will be key. Not everyone will need to be both, however they'll need these types of folks in positions to make decisions that make sense for the health and success of the company.

 

*raises hand*

I'll VOLUNTEER to help run the company!

 

I can help make product decisions for them.

 

Guy and Charlie,
I'm with both of you...but what Charlie says has been on my mind for some time now. There comes a point where you don't have enough people to effectively run a company. The bigger issue then becomes, what and how are the survivors fairing? How effective can they be, and bottom line? How much do they give a ****?

To wit: My former dealer rep took a buyout in November. His boss took one, too. Now, I have a 25 year Chrysler veteran manager calling on my podunk dealership once a week to check on things, because the 2 layers below him pretty much all took buyouts. Apparently, there is hardly one person under the age of 30 left at Chrysler Corp.

How stressed out and discouraged do you think this guy is right now? Multiply him by 18,000, and there you have the morale of the white collars at Chrysler.

 

X3!

And my first decision would be to build the Z/28.



P.S. Actually that would be my second decision; my first would be to get the Chevy Cruze in NA dealer showrooms post haste!

 

Yes on the Cruze. Then #2 should be the Spark, #3 Orlando. GM needs those globally more than it needs a Z/28.

Bob Lutz comes to mind. GM has shattered the wills and dreams of so many of these people over the years due to sheer political frustration that I think the layoffs don't even compare.

GM also needs the older hot shots to encourage the younger guys to strive and succeed - show them where to go and give them a mentor to look up to. Someone should make a "Be like Bob!" or "Be like Tom!" poster.

I wonder what it would take to get Bob Lutz back into GM's offices for 6 months or 12 months to mentor his replacement...

 

Sorry to be so blunt, but this thread is absurd and ill-informed. Who's to judge, from our decidedly EXTERNAL viewpoint, the people and morale at GM as of now? (BTW I just love that brave anonymous "GM Insider" quoted above about the brain drain at GM ).

I know a couple folks at GM. I've coordinated with them recently and they are doing fine there. (They happen to be shining examples of "True Believers" at GM as well, IMHO). Clearly the recent events have taken a toll on GM's enthusiasm. But it's mighty (and IMHO unfairly) presumptuous to just assume that "all the good people have already left". In fact I'd take the opposite theory... I believe the leaders likely got rid of the 'deadwood' first and have kept the better ones. It's the "True Believers" like Stephenson (formerly of PowerTrain, now taking on the post vacated by Lutz) who will carry the torch forward for GM, and have the passion to do so.

 

Sorry to be blunt back at you Big, but you are being absurd if you think only the "dead wood" has been lost.

The 4 names I mentioned in a previous post are far from dead wood, and I'm sure you know that.

 

I think GM was honestly on the right track untill sales dropped 50% in the course of a year...and have now stayed that way for several months. I think most businesses would be pushed to the brink by that single occurance..no matter how well they are run. If you told anyone in the auto industry at the start of 2008, cars would be selling at a 8-9million a year annualized rate by the end of the year (and stay that way for several months), you would have been laughed out the room. That is the kind of disater you have no plan for because it is not honestly seen as survivable. The auto industry is just not that flexible or elastic. Hell Toyota ran from a $20 billion a year profit to a loss in this downturn. If they had GM's legacy costs...they would likely be staring at BK too.

 

I'm sure it's an imperfect process, getting rid of slackers during a downsizing. But I wasn't referring to folks like Heinrichy/Lutz anyway. I suppose the point is, GM is changing but there's no basis for stating there will be (or is) some kind of "talent deficit" or "passion vacuum". Especially from the very limited vantage point of posters herein.

 

Charlie, another way to look at it is that it would give some of the younger, less GM-think, a chance to shine and push the company in another direction (as referenced in your military analogy).

IMO, with our economy and market how it is right now, you're going to see top management at a lot of companies go stagnate since no one can afford to retire. This might actually be the silver lining for GM.

 

Let's hope that visionary leaders will emerge from the ashes. The new GM will need them.