100 Days of New GM: Management

[mgescuro]

Originally Posted by MonaroSS

Mate,

You are making wild assumptions about corporate culture, like these people are not real human beings, but some type of automatonic lemmings.

So you must agree with everything your boss does? You have never found yourself secretly critical of your superiors decisions at work and telling your family/friends "if I were in charge I would never do that"?

By your assessment of how the world works you should never be promoted to your boss’s position unless the company wants his management style 100 percent replicated. Because according to you, you are incapable of being anything other that what your boss has been because you have reported to him.

You must be nothing more than an amalgam of all the bosses you've worked for, with no independent thinking and reasoning capacity of your own....

I don't work for a bankrupt company.
In order to rid a body of cancer, you get rid of the cancer. You don't get rid of some of it. And then leave the rest to continue to grow.

It isn't "wild assumptions" about corporate culture.
Any HBS case study on GM has pointed out this fatal flaw in GM's management style.

It has led to GM's fall. And it has been allowed to continue thru bankruptcy.

That in and of itself is wrong.

[MonaroSS]

Originally Posted by mgescuro

I don't work for a bankrupt company.

^^^ This point is totally irrelevant and irrational to the argument....

Originally Posted by mgescuro

In order to rid a body of cancer, you get rid of the cancer. You don't get rid of some of it. And then leave the rest to continue to grow.

Firstly, the best way to treat cancer is to leave the tissue in the body and use chemo or radiation treatment over time to shrink the tumour. You do everything you can to save the good tissue immediately surrounding the cancer (in your metaphor that would be the subordinate executives from which current leadership positions are being filled).

Your remedy is the old crude “cut it all out - along with half the good tissue and organs” leaving a scarred dysfunctional body that never really reaches good health ever again because of the unwise brutality of the cure.

Originally Posted by mgescuro

It isn't "wild assumptions" about corporate culture.
Any HBS case study on GM has pointed out this fatal flaw in GM's management style.

Really? I'd like to see a link to ANY Harvard Business School study that said GM's top executives and all those who report to them should be fired because underlings think and behave exactly like their boss does.

Originally Posted by mgescuro

It has led to GM's fall. And it has been allowed to continue thru bankruptcy.

That in and of itself is wrong.

Many things led to the bankruptcy; one huge part of which was chronically bad leadership over decades that never took on the cost structures of labour and did not downsize brands and models to reflect GM's reduced market share.

Tell me exactly how that has continued through bankruptcy. Oh that's right, it hasn't, as labour costs were dramatically cut and brands and models were slashed.

I'm not seeing any merit or comporting of your thinking with the truth and facts of this matter.....

[mgescuro]

Originally Posted by MonaroSS

^^^ This point is totally irrelevant and irrational to the argument....

How is it irrelevant?
Management is completely relevant to this discussion.
If you've ever worked for a company that was bankrupt or in the process of going bankrupt, as i have at one point, you know the political mess the company becomes as everyone tries to save themselves.

How much experience do you have in organizational behavior?

Originally Posted by MonaroSS

Firstly, the best way to treat cancer is to leave the tissue in the body and use chemo or radiation treatment over time to shrink the tumour. You do everything you can to save the good tissue immediately surrounding the cancer (in your metaphor that would be the subordinate executives from which current leadership positions are being filled).

Your remedy is the old crude “cut it all out - along with half the good tissue and organs” leaving a scarred dysfunctional body that never really reaches good health ever again because of the unwise brutality of the cure.

No.
That is analogous to GM's 30 years of slow decline as they tried to put on band aid after band aid after band aid. There comes a point in time where chemo is no longer a viable solution. And taking out the mass is probably the best bet for survival.

Originally Posted by MonaroSS

Really? I'd like to see a link to ANY Harvard Business School study that said GM's top executives and all those who report to them should be fired because underlings think and behave exactly like their boss does.

Leaders in Denial
http://cb.hbsp.harvard.edu/cb/web/pr...921871&E=66624

End of Management?
http://cb.hbsp.harvard.edu/cb/web/pr...922082&E=10947

Why Management Innovation Matters
http://cb.hbsp.harvard.edu/cb/web/pr...922082&E=10952

That's a start.
Anything more, is worthy of a dissertation on Organizational behavior and management. And if you want, I'll give one to you, but we'll bore everyone here.

Originally Posted by MonaroSS

Many things led to the bankruptcy; one huge part of which was chronically bad leadership over decades that never took on the cost structures of labour and did not downsize brands and models to reflect GM's reduced market share.

Tell me exactly how that has continued through bankruptcy. Oh that's right, it hasn't, as labour costs were dramatically cut and brands and models were slashed.

That's a simplistic overview of GM's situation. Bankruptcy took 30+ years for GM. Are you trying to tell me that there was no point in time in those 30+ years that GM could NEVER have found a way to rectify itself?
GM had already identified its problems. And they never took it upon itself to fix it.
That's a management problem. Managers always groom people to take on their position. By definition, the cancer is self-perpetuating.

Originally Posted by MonaroSS

I'm not seeing any merit or comporting of your thinking with the truth and facts of this matter.....

Then get a pair of glasses?

[wescoent]

Curing a poisonous corporate culture is easy in theory, but difficult to implement:

-Change leadership at the top, and ensure this leadership will truly set a different tone for the organization

-Break down physical and organizational walls for maximum transparency on all levels

-Change the reporting structure

-Fire and shuffle personnel as much as possible

-Establish a simple/clear mission and goals for the organization, as well as the means to measure progress.

-Establish an organizational structure for fast and final decision making, to eliminate committees and hand-wringing

Some of this is Management 101. GM appears to be making progress in some areas.

[mgescuro]

Originally Posted by wescoent

Curing a poisonous corporate culture is easy in theory, but difficult to implement:

-Change leadership at the top, and ensure this leadership will truly set a different tone for the organization

-Break down physical and organizational walls for maximum transparency on all levels

-Change the reporting structure

-Fire and shuffle personnel as much as possible

-Establish a simple/clear mission and goals for the organization, as well as the means to measure progress.

-Establish an organizational structure for fast and final decision making, to eliminate committees and hand-wringing

Some of this is Management 101. GM appears to be making progress in some areas.

Changing a culture is nearly impossible. And it doesn't happen without turnover.
We still have pretty much the same executives in power, with some shuffling around. And I don't find that to be healthy.

Not convinced the organizational barriers have been broken down.
I haven't seen or heard of any different goals from the organization, except that Fritz is using a less complicated metrics driven approach compared to Wagoner's uber-metrics driven approach.

We know GM's been firing and reshuffling. The extent of which is unknown.

The organizational structure for fast decision making isn't working fast enough. It might be "faster" when compared to "Old GM," but it's not fast enough compared to the competition.

[wescoent]

Originally Posted by mgescuro

Changing a culture is nearly impossible.

Then explain this, right down the street:



I've been told it's like working for a different company since he arrived.

[mgescuro]

Originally Posted by wescoent

Then explain this, right down the street:



I've been told it's like working for a different company since he arrived.

It wasn't an overnight shift.
And he's leading by example. Plus Ford's culture wasn't as cancerous as GM's. Plus Mulally was brought in with full backing of Ford to save his company.

Real leadership was shown by Ford when he stepped aside in order to let Mulally come in and run things.

PLUS..... Mullaly is an outsider.

[MonaroSS]

Originally Posted by mgescuro

How is it irrelevant?
Management is completely relevant to this discussion.
If you've ever worked for a company that was bankrupt or in the process of going bankrupt, as i have at one point, you know the political mess the company becomes as everyone tries to save themselves.

How much experience do you have in organizational behavior?


No.
That is analogous to GM's 30 years of slow decline as they tried to put on band aid after band aid after band aid. There comes a point in time where chemo is no longer a viable solution. And taking out the mass is probably the best bet for survival.




Leaders in Denial
http://cb.hbsp.harvard.edu/cb/web/pr...921871&E=66624

End of Management?
http://cb.hbsp.harvard.edu/cb/web/pr...922082&E=10947

Why Management Innovation Matters
http://cb.hbsp.harvard.edu/cb/web/pr...922082&E=10952

That's a start.
Anything more, is worthy of a dissertation on Organizational behavior and management. And if you want, I'll give one to you, but we'll bore everyone here.



That's a simplistic overview of GM's situation. Bankruptcy took 30+ years for GM. Are you trying to tell me that there was no point in time in those 30+ years that GM could NEVER have found a way to rectify itself?
GM had already identified its problems. And they never took it upon itself to fix it.
That's a management problem. Managers always groom people to take on their position. By definition, the cancer is self-perpetuating.


Then get a pair of glasses?

I forfeit. You are clearly more worldly wise and a better businessman than I could ever be ….as well as obviously being my intellectual superior.

[Hitman1970]

Originally Posted by MonaroSS

I forfeit. You are clearly more worldly wise and a better businessman than I could ever be ….as well as obviously being my intellectual superior.

Don't encourage him. Just kidding, Mgescuro.

[mikmak]

Originally Posted by MonaroSS

I forfeit. You are clearly more worldly wise and a better businessman than I could ever be ….as well as obviously being my intellectual superior.

Bah! Chicken.

I understand both points and neither will be proven decisively accurate until there is a measurably value on which to compare.

As for the links provided from HBS, I'm not going to pay for them to read them, but is there actual specific data that satisfies MonaroSS request:

Originally Posted by MonaroSS

Really? I'd like to see a link to ANY Harvard Business School study that said GM's top executives and all those who report to them should be fired because underlings think and behave exactly like their boss does.

The first does show a study of how previous GM management fell into the same trap as some predecessors, but the other 2 relate to the importance and power of innovation within management PRACTICES, not the deconstruction of resident personnel.

So the same still applies. If those currently in situ, adhere to new management practices, provide transparency and are regulated by an innovative management policy, then they may have harnessed "unmatched power to create dramatic and enduring shifts in competitive advantage", or maybe just recognised "how advances in management practice can enhance organizational performance".

I get how MG doesn't think enough has been done to stop the rot, but it will all fall on each of their abilities to call each other (and themselves) out on things that may have been done wrong or in contravention with new policy.

The biggest hurdle (and I don't know if this applies directly to GM but certainly applies to culture in general) is the obsession with accountability. The most relevant product of that obsession is the fear of ones own failings preventing their willingness to highlight someone else's problems. This circumvents the whole point of procedural and operational transparency. There is no point looking at each other, noticing a problem but not saying anything. Everyone is flawed in one respect or anther. Someone else always knows more than the next person, in one subject or another.

If higher management recognises an executives willingness to bear deficiencies early and learn from them, rather than that person hiding behind a thin veil of paper competency (which currently seems to be an attractive management quality) as the valuable characteristic that it is, that is when you can create a team that can capitalise on transparency. That is what gives rise to holistic innovation and that is my hope for New GM Management.

[MonaroSS]

Originally Posted by mikmak

Bah! Chicken.

Well this chicken simply does not have the time to waste banging heads with a person well proven not to be open to reconsidering his position based upon rational argument. Have you seen how long some of his arguments go on for?

Why would anyone bother engaging with a mind set only upon justifying an already poorly formed opinion, rather than engaging with a mind open to reasoning and being persuaded if the facts merit it? Unless that is you just enjoy an ego rant and the sound (look) of you own words....

Originally Posted by mikmak

As for the links provided from HBS, I'm not going to pay for them to read them, but is there actual specific data that satisfies MonaroSS request:

I don't need to waste time reading dozens of pages to know in advance those studies do not contain what mgescuro likes to pretend or delude himself that they do. If they did he would have done what any self-respecting intellectual would do, and quote the relevant passages that respond to my request.

But such passages do not exist because as full-of-it as most HBS alumni are, they are not stupid and would never commit to the written word such an unsustainable contention....

[wescoent]

Originally Posted by mgescuro

It wasn't an overnight shift.
And he's leading by example. Plus Ford's culture wasn't as cancerous as GM's. Plus Mulally was brought in with full backing of Ford to save his company.

Real leadership was shown by Ford when he stepped aside in order to let Mulally come in and run things.

PLUS..... Mullaly is an outsider.

I would vehemently disagree about Ford's culture. For as much as I like Ford, their corporate culture was easily the worse of the two when compared to GM.

All I'm saying is... with the right people on board, I think GM can pull this off. Do they have the right people?

[mgescuro]

Originally Posted by MonaroSS

Well this chicken simply does not have the time to waste banging heads with a person well proven not to be open to reconsidering his position based upon rational argument. Have you seen how long some of his arguments go on for?

I stand up for my position. And no, I won't reconsider it because everything out there proves I am right.

GM is in this mess because of bad management and a culture of laziness and slow reaction.

You are wrong. I am right. And that other thread about why Wagoner was fired continues to prove my point.

THe continued position of people like you at GM is that "GM will be alright." The reality is, GM is NOT alright.

There are significant issues at GM they haven't even begun to tackle. And if they can't even fix the top brass, then there is no hope.


It's about time people like you on GM quit giving GM the benefit of the doubt. You've all been suckered into GM's reality distortion field. GM is not healthy. GM's products have been out classed by the rest of the world. And public percpetion is NOT on GM's side. And GM's management remains.

So in short... you remain deluded.
And I am not wrong.

Originally Posted by wescoent

I would vehemently disagree about Ford's culture. For as much as I like Ford, their corporate culture was easily the worse of the two when compared to GM.

All I'm saying is... with the right people on board, I think GM can pull this off. Do they have the right people?

The difference is that Ford was willing to make the change.
The difference is that an outsider was given carte blanche to change the attitude of the company or die.
The difference is, that even though Ford is a publicly traded company, it is still a "family run business."

Does GM have the right people on board? No.
Change is going to come hard for GM. They are changing, but it's not nearly on the scale needed to effect change.

[aldw]

If the DuPonts were still controlling GM things might have been better off than what going on now.

[vcs2600]

Originally Posted by mgescuro

It's about time people like you on GM quit giving GM the benefit of the doubt. You've all been suckered into GM's reality distortion field. GM is not healthy. GM's products have been out classed by the rest of the world. And public percpetion is NOT on GM's side. And GM's management remains.

Thank you for hammering on this point.

One side-effect of the 'quick bankruptcy' is that many GMI posters (not necessarily MonaroSS) went right back into "business-as-usual" mode of praising GM management strategy and blaming all issues on external forces (Consumer Reports, California, lack of patriotism, etc etc), as if it never happened. Now that GM has recieved a massive capital injection and had their major contentious issues resolved, it's no-excuses time. Either GM management executes, or they don't.