Gotta agree with this guy

 

I don't know. He says "you can't cost cut your way to successs". I think the issue is more complicated than that.

In the long run, cutting and cutting and cutting will not be good. However, when in difficult times, I don't see anything wrong with doing some cost cutting and downsizing for a period of time to get your problems under control, then to look at expanding again when you are in better shape.

Kinda like a football team in the NFL. When your team is 8-8 one year, then 7-9 the next, then 6-8 the next, it may be time to cut salary, get rid of the veterans, and KNOW you aren't going to do well the next year. But you take a hit and 'cut the fat' now..and then when you are leaner you have a better chance of getting back to the top.

 

But what the GM leaders are neglecting is a strategy that works in tandem with cost cutting: That's a Leadership Strategy."
[/url]

If that's true then they are sunk. You can only bust down costs so much. Excess fat can be cut but if you continue to go beyond that you begin to lose quality. Your suppliers have to make money also and at some point like any business they will find a way to make money and if a price is set at a certain point where they feel they currently cannot make money they will give you a cheaper product for that price, exactly what GM does not want.

The company I work for has been bought out several times in the last 15 years and every time the new guy comes in with a new undescovered way to cut costs and become more profitable only to fail miserably in a couple of years only to sell yet again. About 4 years ago the next new buyer came in and everyone was expecting the same old thing but this new guy was different. He came in and never mentioned one thing about cost cutting. Instead of running all over the place saying we can do this or that cheaper he said we can do this and that better and we have these other technologies that no one can do. After that customers lined up to give us a chance and the employees took on the challange full force and we have been super busy and have had the most profitable last 3 years in the history of the company.

Sure price is very important for everything but if it's your only answer your long term future is bleak. It's been said a thousand times but GM needs to make products that people really want to buy and that is the only way to have a long term future. You can't do it all on cost because someone will always be able to do it cheaper, currently the Koreans, so you have to be better.

 

Sounds like a canned MBA seminar to me.

 

Let me get this straight, "GM doesn't have a leadership strategy. It's strategy leaves out leaders. It isn't a strategy. Cost cutting isn't a strategy. Business strategies aren't leadership strategies. Businesses need leaders. Strategies need leaders. Leaders need strategies. Businesses need Leaders. Buy my book. Hire me as a consultant with seperate funding. Blah, blah, blah. Business. Leader. Strategy. Blah. Blah. Leadership Strategy."

Does this guy even know what GM's strategies are? Does he know what training and communications middle-management and group leaders receive? How can he say the leaders that need to execute the strategy aren't involved. This guy sounds like an idiot.

 

Source: http://www.prweb.com/releases/2005/12/prweb316869.htm

December 1, 2005
"General Motors Leadership Doesn't Get It," Says Leadership Expert

"The automaker is paying the price for neglecting a key strategic driver: a leadership strategy."

Williamstown, MA (PRWEB) December 1, 2005 -- Leadership expert, Brent Filson, says that the recent job cuts and reorganization of General Motors is not so much the result of marketplace dynamics but of the company's relentless leadership failings.

"The GM leaders who are driving the cuts are missing the point," says Filson, founder and president of The Filson Leadership Group, Inc., a corporate consultancy. "Sure, they have a cost cutting strategy. All manufacturers must be continuously reducing costs -- at least three to five percent a year. But what the GM leaders are neglecting is a strategy that works in tandem with cost cutting: That's a Leadership Strategy."

Filson, having worked with thousands of leaders during the past 21 years in top companies worldwide, says a Leadership Strategy can be far more important to a company's success than a standard business strategy. "A business strategy seeks to marshal an organization's functions around central, organizing concepts," Filson observes. "A Leadership Strategy, on the other hand, seeks to obtain, organize, and direct the heartfelt commitment of the people who must carry out the strategy. A Leadership Strategy takes a separate vision, separate funding, separate training, and separate installation and implementation. It involves bringing middle management and small-unit leaders into the picture rather than leaving them out in the cold as cost cutting usually does. The business strategy is the sail, the Leadership Strategy the ballast. Without a Leadership Strategy, most business strategies capsize."

Filson says that General Motors like so many organizations lacking Leadership Strategies know how to develop and implement cost cutting strategies. "Cost cutting is not complicated. But you can't cost-cut your way to success. And that's where the Leadership Strategy comes in. A Leadership Strategy can help the company get great results, both in the bottom and top lines. Companies that don't have a Leadership Strategy, if not in name at least in effect, are missing out on colossal streams of revenue."

The author of 23 books, Brent Filson first learned about leadership as a Marine Corps rifle platoon commander. For the past 20 years, as a civilian, he has helped thousands of leaders in major companies worldwide achieve sizable and continual increases in results. He has published many books and hundreds of articles on leadership, developed motivational leadership strategies and created and instituted leadership educational and training programs. He has lectured at Columbia University, M.I.T., Wake Forest, Villanova and many other universities. Recently, he has conducted more than 125 radio interviews dealing with leadership in today's world.

Article by Filson on The Leadership Strategy : http://www.actionleadership.com/articles/0052.html

all these wasted werds can be summed up in something like this-- motivate employees to love their jobs and werk hard for the company instead of working for a paycheck. how many of you guys love your job?

 

Some of the biggest missteps at GM has been with management. So many times people promise a new hope at GM with superb models to back it up. What I see of GM has been a carmaker that didn't work up to its potential. You just look at GM's current lineup, especially Cadillac, and you know that it can compete with anyone. But some of their cars in the past feel like compromises, as if GM had a good thing going, but some things are really missing.

GM can regain market share, I disagree with those who said that its decline is inevitable. But the General needs to produce not just good cars, but cars that will give Toyota and Honda buyers a slam dunk reason to trade to a GM. I have no doubt that some vehicles can compete effectively with the imports, but when you are trying to pry buyers off a brand with a well-deserved reputation like Toyota, you need to produce a superb vehicle that will give numerous reasons why a Camry and Accord loyalist should instead buy an Aura or Impala.

 

Sounds like a canned MBA seminar to me.

Then Wagoner must have been asleep in business school... (why does this not come as a surprise to anyone?)

 

Some of the biggest missteps at GM has been with management. So many times people promise a new hope at GM with superb models to back it up. What I see of GM has been a carmaker that didn't work up to its potential. You just look at GM's current lineup, especially Cadillac, and you know that it can compete with anyone. But some of their cars in the past feel like compromises, as if GM had a good thing going, but some things are really missing.

GM can regain market share, I disagree with those who said that its decline is inevitable. But the General needs to produce not just good cars, but cars that will give Toyota and Honda buyers a slam dunk reason to trade to a GM. I have no doubt that some vehicles can compete effectively with the imports, but when you are trying to pry buyers off a brand with a well-deserved reputation like Toyota, you need to produce a superb vehicle that will give numerous reasons why a Camry and Accord loyalist should instead buy an Aura or Impala.

And GM needs to give customers superior service along with much better
re-sale value. This can only be acheived with a total commitment from
management to not only build class-leading product, but stand by it with
at least 5-7 year warranties.

 

I really don't like much of GM's leadership, but Bob Lutz is pretty cool. Also Gary Cowger has his exciting parts. LeNeve is alright and Paul Ballew is always stating facts. Also there was this other guy that is alright...but I forgot his name.

 

This guys just sounds like he's trying to sell something.

 

Paul Ballew? Got to be the biggest idiot in the auto industry. Anyway, back to the big fish...

Why is GM's CEO Still Employed?
Commentary by Terry Keenan for FOX Fan Central

FNC
Terry Keenan
With 30,000 pink slips out there and counting, no doubt the crisis at GM has already become one of the top business stories of 2005. But absent from most of the coverage is any discussion of the mother of all pink slips for GM CEO Richard "Rick" Wagoner.

In fact, it is most curious that given the level of carnage in rank-and-file positions, the endless sea of red ink, and the shareholder activism of the post-Enron era, that virtually no one has called for Mr. Wagoner's head, even as the bad news mounts day after day. In fact, the 52-year-old Wagoner seems exceedingly confident in his employment prospects. Just last week, he told reporters he has given "no thought" to the possibility of stepping down — this as GM stock continues to trade at levels not seen since 1992.

That year should have special meaning to Wagoner and his fellow executives at Renaissance Center, for that was the year that GM’s outside directors finally ousted the former management in a successful attempt to avert bankruptcy. Luckily for Wagoner, his board doesn't seem nearly as impatient.

And one look at the current board members explains why. It is littered with executives who fared no better than Wagoner in turning around their sick companies: former Compaq chief Eckhard Pfeiffer (remember him?), former Kodak CEO George Fisher and Percy Barnevik, the man who almost pushed Europe's ABB into the ground. Yet this is the "brain trust" Wagoner is relying on to help him with what is arguably the most difficult turnaround job in decades. What ever happened to the era of better corporate governance and accountability?

To be sure, Wagoner was given a near-Herculean task to begin with when he took over the reigns at GM in 2000. Still, at virtually every turn it seems this GM management team made the wrong one — even on those rare occasions when the company was holding most of the chips — as was the case with the magnificently bungled auction of its coveted GM Hughes division.

But it wasn't just the Hughes debacle, Wagoner also oversaw GM's disastrous investments in Fuji and Fiat, costing billions of dollars and the automaker's relentless reliance on SUV sales.

One person surely trying to make sense of it all is billionaire investor Kirk Kerkorian. With 9.9 percent of GM's stock, he and his investment vehicle Tricinda have been curiously quiet of late. Don't expect that to last much longer. In the past, Kerkorian has been known to demand board representation in companies where he has a sizeable stake, and GM will not likely prove to be the exception.

A board seat or two for Mr. Kerkorian and his cronies would surely be Rick Wagoner's worst nightmare. But perhaps a major shake-up of the board and the executive suite is the only medicine that can stop the bleeding at what was once the world's greatest manufacturer.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Terry Keenan is the anchor of Cashin’ In and an FNC business correspondent

 

Sounds like a canned MBA seminar to me.

Lol eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeexxxxactly. Here we have, again, another "expert" giving us his "expert analysis" that, of course, will lead to his "miracle solution." The best thing about these types of articles is they give the solution without any suggestions of how it should be implemented, because the "expert" probably can't, which means they don't know enough about the auto business, which would make them not experts at all. It's like that crazy guy in the question mark suit - "buy my book and rip off the government for millions"

 

Does this guy even know what GM's strategies are? Does he know what training and communications middle-management and group leaders receive? How can he say the leaders that need to execute the strategy aren't involved. This guy sounds like an idiot.

Perhaps a significant portion of the problem lies in middle management not being allowed to communicate effectively. On several occasions, in several 'industries' (government included) I've seen those most in touch with the problems are the first to be ignored.

I'm not personally familiar with the inner workings of GM's corporate structure but I'd be amazed if high-level managers solicit, or even listen to, the input of the folks in middle management.

 

I love these consultants that come in with canned programs. A long time ago, a fellow was contracted by our company to give his sermon which basically can be labeled "do it right the first time". Now, we sat there and said to our collective selves "Who doesn't try to do it right the first time"? When he got to the part where the company must commit the resources and time to make it work, well that part fell on deaf ears.
If there were easy 1-2-3 steps to success, then it would have been taken.
Another thing, Everybody focuses on Lutz and Waggoner and ...; it's really the middle managers who run the company. It is they who should be held up for review.

 

Gotta agree with this guy

This reminds me of a sports writer criticizing a sports player. If the writer knows so much, why isn't he playing the game.

GM's business is not so easy to run and people who say it is all about product are oversimplifing the issue.

If you ask me GM has got some really great products out there but they don't seem to be helping.

 

What this guy is missing is that GM's "Management" don't get it. Look at the company's org charts. They don't have leaders, there is no leadership at GM. It's not just the job name it is the culture at GM. Years ago they started a culture change by naming their supervision "Managers" and they haven't figured out that you don't manage people, you manage cash flow, you manage inventories, and you manage property. But you don't manage people, you lead people. You lead by example, and the upper levels of GM don't understand that or they wouldn't be telling GM employees how much they have to cut costs at the same time providing themselves with ever increasing salaries and pension programs. Workers dig their heals in and quit trying under such circumstances not jump up and sacrifice to follow their respected leaders.

 

Sounds like a canned MBA seminar to me.

:rotf: :rotf: :rotf: Couldn't agree more but even "canned" seminars manage to get some things right. The website is also just a pitch site for the author's books. Kind of gives me that night school MBA seminar feel you know

What was the line about a "professor who can't hack it in the real world"

 

It's not that GM just doesn't get it, it's the American public fooled into thinking there is a huge Gap in quality from American Cars to Foreign cars. JD Power comes out with their final analysis ever year that shows GM hanging out in the top, but people still think otherwise. It's GM's bad PR and the Media's unnacountable bias.

 

This guys just sounds like he's trying to sell something.

Very much, it sounds like he wants the job.

But GM can learn from him, cost cutting isn't the whole answer, they have been cost cutting for the past 15 years and getting deeper and deeper.

The price tightening of suppliers is one of the reasons for all the recalls we have been seeing and this will only get worse.

 

Years ago they started a culture change by naming their supervision "Managers" and they haven't figured out that you don't manage people, you manage cash flow, you manage inventories, and you manage property. But you don't manage people, you lead people. You lead by example, and the upper levels of GM don't understand that or they wouldn't be telling GM employees how much they have to cut costs at the same time providing themselves with ever increasing salaries and pension programs.

On the money. And people can be lead ONLY by those they respect. What do people respect? Integrity is essential in a leader. The leader doesn't have to know how to do all the jobs of those he/she leads, but he/she must be able to distinguish truth from bullsh!t. And courageous enough to make tough calls and follow up on them with action. A leader can never lie. This means no screwing suppliers, employees or customers. No manipulating of other people. A leader must be willing to work just as hard as anyone else. A leader must be willing to accept responsibility for their own mistakes. Wagoner et al. fail on multiple scores.

This guys just sounds like he's trying to sell something.

He is. I saw this somewhere else a few days ago and went to his web site. He holds seminars, sells books and videos; etc. This isn't to say he's wrong about GM of course.

 

You all know the history of GM was to buy up individual car companies called 'Cadillac', 'Chevrolet', 'Buick', 'Pontiac' etc and merge them into a mega company.

What if GM just got too big to be innovative anymore? Maybe the answer is in spinning off Cadillac/Hummer/Saturn as a separate company like BMW/Land Rover/Mini (before they sold Land Rover), and Chevrolet/Daewoo to fight (Honda, Toyota, Hyundai) and pit a separate GMC/Buick/Pontiac against traditional Ford and Chrysler products?

When Bell Telephone was forced to split up into the Baby Bells they all did much better than the original "whole' company could. There is such a thing as being TOO BIG!!!



P.S. engines, technology could be shared between these separate companies like happens already today between companies like Fiat using GM engines, Proton using Mitsubishi engines, BMW and Chrysler sharing an engine in Mini.


.

 

Many of GM's problems over the past 3 decades can be traced to a lack of functional conflict. It hired and promoted individuals who were "yes men", loyal to GM to the point of never questioning company actions. Managers were, for the most part, conservative white anglo-saxon males raised in the midwestern US and who resisted change- they preffered looking back to past success rather than forward to new challenges. They were almost sanctimonious in their belief that what had worked in the past would continue to work in the future. Moreover, by sheltering executives in the company's Detroit offices and encouraging them to socailize with others inside the GM ranks, the company further insulated managers from conflicting perspectives.

 

This guys just sounds like he's trying to sell something.

he sure is

 

Terry Keenan's Fox piece pretty much nails it, it not a "Board of Directors" it's a "Board of Bystanders". Build stuff the public wants and everyone's job gets easier.