Wagoner Will Give Up N/A Control "Sometime In The Future"

[Perian]

Link: wsj.com

DOW JONES NEWSWIRES
April 4, 2006 1:57 p.m.

NEW YORK -- General Motors Corp.'s (GM) chief executive, Rick Wagoner, said Tuesday he will give up day-to-day control of North American operations sometime in the future.

"I don't think having me do both the jobs, the corporate job and the North American job, is the right long-term answer," Wagoner told the Free Press in an interview. "But I think while we're in the midst of the turnaround, the value of the shortened lines of communication speaks for itself. And so we're going to stick with it for a while longer."

Wagoner took direct control of North America operations a year ago in a move perceived as "make or break" to turn around the automaker from a downturn in earnings, the newspaper said.

The move allowed the two men responsible for North America, Vice Chairman Bob Lutz and Group Vice President Gary Cowger, to focus on global areas, The Detroit News said.

[Perian]

I'm not sure what "sometime in the future" means on a time-line.

However, just the fact that he is talking about it indicates that he has made some kind of decision.

[mgescuro]

All Wagoner has to do is make sure initiatives that are focused on returning the NA market are on the way... then he can hand it off.
I don't knwo about everyone else, but I fully expected him to hand it off eventually.

I woudl expect something end of Q2... which would see the final launch of the GMT900 trucks and SUVs, as well as the Saturn Greenline and Enclave production, as well as SRX.

[Quickening]

So he would mantain is spot on top of all of GM, but a new guy would take control of GM NA? Ok, I say get turned around first.

[toronado10]

It sounds to me like he's being forced. Will Jerome York take over? Kerkorian and York could try to force themselves in as president to make sure that their investment pays off. But would that be a good or bad thing?

[Quickening]

Originally Posted by toronado10

It sounds to me like he's being forced. Will Jerome York take over? Kerkorian and York could try to force themselves in as president to make sure that their investment pays off. But would that be a good or bad thing?

A bad bad thing. I dont' care what Lutz says, York would gladly start hacking brands off. Just put Lutz in control

[cfch3399]

The good news is that means Wagoner and his successor will focus entirely on corporate issues and hopefully avoid accounting scams. Since no heads rolled as a consequence of the missing billions and half a dozen SEC investigations, Wagoner clearly doesn't have what it takes.
Hopefully they can get a car guy to run NA ops not another ivy-league businessman/accountant/lawyer/crook.

[SUPERBADD75]

Originally Posted by cfch3399

Hopefully they can get a car guy to run NA ops not another ivy-league businessman/accountant/lawyer/crook.

yeah, Bob Lutz...... sounds good and he did great things at Chrysler, he could be even better at GM because they at least have quality under control, unlike Chrysler did.

[ByTheLake]

...he will give up day-to-day control of North American operations sometime in the future.

Just what the heck does that mean?

I, too, won't have my current job ... sometime in the future.

[bone]

I think a great deal of Bob Lutz,but realistically, how long can we expect him to be able to carry on. If Mark Fields of Ford were available, I would hire him to take over NA operations and coerice Roger Penske into the presidency and CEO of GM.

[Cortazzo]

Originally Posted by bone

I think a great deal of Bob Lutz,but realistically, how long can we expect him to be able to carry on. If Mark Fields of Ford were available, I would hire him to take over NA operations and coerice Roger Penske into the presidency and CEO of GM.

I'm all for Penske taking the reins, talk about a successful man. I think the important thing that Lutz did was change GMs culture from that of taking out costs to making great products. Even if Lutz retires in a year or two, he will have left a wonderful legacy that is really just starting to show itself. Wagoner was right when he said in one of his interviews 'look at reviews of our products a year ago, and look at them now, there is a huge difference' and he's right, and there is still room to grow.

[Buickman]

Leadership Structure
Jim Dollinger
Sunday, February 12, 2006

Waterfalls begin as raindrops
Avalanches begin as snowflakes
Bankruptcies begin with poor decisions

General Motors' current difficulties are the direct result of decades of poor decision making. Many blame Roger Smith for today's troubles. Certainly Mr. Smith made very costly mistakes. He invested roughly $40 Billion on technology such as robotics. F. Alan Smith (no relation), who was chief financial officer, claimed that for the same amount we could have bought Toyota and Honda. Now the reverse is true, they can buy us! Yes, Roger Smith had failings, he attempted to replace human relations with automation, and in hindsight that was foolish.

These days, poor decision making continues. Spinning off GMAC, cutting wages and benefits, alienating dealers, and disastrous marketing can all be squarely blamed on a lack of leadership at the top. In order to reverse course, the shareholders and Board of Directors must focus on the Corporation's leadership structure. GM is far too large for any one person to occupy multiple positions of responsibility. The Chairman should be a financial expert who creates the long term vision and direction for the company. This individual needs to be separate from the President who is in charge of world wide operations. Under said President should be an executive with primary responsibility for North America, and this individual needs to be a "car guy". Currently General Motors has one man, Mr Wagoner, who is attempting to carry out all three of these tasks. It is easy to see why he is doing a lousy job at each of them. GM does need to restructure, but at the very top where it matters most. It is impossible for one person to function effectively as Chairman, President, and Chief Operating Officer.

Once a realignment of leadership occurs, GM has a chance to rebound in the marketplace. That resurgence will begin through implementing better decisions. We must go back to the basics of selling cars and the best way to accomplish positive results is to place one person firmly in charge of just North America and hold that person accountable. The future viability of GM and the good of our country hangs in the balance.


Buickman
Founder
www.GeneralWatch.com

[jbartley]

this makes sense, but i wouldn't expect it til NEXT year. Probably following the launch of the GMT-900, saturns products, the new CTS, and the lambdas early next year.

The GM product portfolio then will be much stronger than now, and I feel then he'll focus on his corporate role, especially with CONTRACT NEGOTIATIONS later that year (2007).

He realizes that during that battle, he'll be doing GM a disservice by being corporate and product guy.

I'm impressed with him, he has a plan, and is knocking off the things on the list one by one.

[Buickman]

You mean knocking of assets, employees, benefits, dealers, suppliers, credit ratings, solvency, and any rational form of common business acumen.

Buickman
Founder
www.GeneralWatch.com

[jbartley]

Originally Posted by Buickman

You mean knocking of assets, employees, benefits, dealers, suppliers, credit ratings, solvency, and any rational form of common business acumen.

Buickman
Founder
www.GeneralWatch.com

assests? if it's not helping, sell it.
employees? too many
benefits? too generous
dealers? many
credit rating? wouldn't improve w/ the sale of GMAC

his business sense? priceless

he's made headway in all those areas,
the same cannot be said for support of your "plan"