"I don’t know anything about cars"

[D189379]

 Originally Posted By: tom slick

At that level, business is what he needs to know about.

+1. His knowledge of cars is irrelevant as he is so far removed from the building/design/marketing of them. He only needs to figure out how to make money.

 

[mrsilv04]

 Originally Posted By: crw

You can't have four retired GM workers getting paid for every one that is still working. THAT WILL NEVER WORK! Never, ever, it won't work.

That's exactly the direction in which Social Security is rapidly moving, yet no one seems to care.

 

[mrsilv04]

 Originally Posted By: Tempest

You do indeed need someone at the top that understands the business. Different labor, markets, materials, marketing methods, etc. These are all different from industry to industry.

A good CEO will surround him/herself with better talent than him/herself. That way the labor issues, the market issues, the material issues (etc) will all be covered.

 

[Volvohead]

 Originally Posted By: D189379

+1. His knowledge of cars is irrelevant as he is so far removed from the building/design/marketing of them. He only needs to figure out how to make money.

That short-term thinking is what destroyed GM in the first place. Focusing ONLY on making money only works for so long. Eventually the market share catches up to you and then it's usually too late to repair the damage. They need to focus on making high quality mainstream vehicles that the market wants, and not just 18% of it. But this guy is only the board chairman, NOT the CEO. He holds the same job as Bill Ford. We all know what Bill Ford does. Whitacre will likely NOT be making day-to-day decisions affecting product or the nuts and bolts of car making, any more than Kent Kresa did. That falls on the company president (formerly Wagoner) and his cadre of top lieutenants. We don't know who that is yet. My concern is that Whitacre looks ill-equipped to make THAT decision in THIS situation.

 

[BuickGN]

 Originally Posted By: Pablo

If he can't boot the union it doesn't matter if he doesn't know his hat size.

X2

 

[PT1]

 Originally Posted By: BuickGN

 Originally Posted By: Pablo

If he can't boot the union it doesn't matter if he doesn't know his hat size.

X2

+3 Since the union is now a major owner....forget it.

 

[Vizzy]

 Originally Posted By: PT1

 Originally Posted By: BuickGN

 Originally Posted By: Pablo

If he can't boot the union it doesn't matter if he doesn't know his hat size.

X2

+3 Since the union is now a major owner....forget it.

Exactly. GM NEEDS to build desirable product, end of story.

 

[Tornado Red]

 Originally Posted By: mrsilv04

 Originally Posted By: crw

You can't have four retired GM workers getting paid for every one that is still working. THAT WILL NEVER WORK! Never, ever, it won't work.

That's exactly the direction in which Social Security is rapidly moving, yet no one seems to care.

The people who should care -- the ones under 40 -- have been lied to so often that they don't know what to believe. Plus they are too busy working to do their own research. Lastly, the unfunded liabilities numbers are just so huge that they cause brain freeze. I'm a baby boomer. Back in 1995-96 I actually took the time to develop a plan to reform Social Security; I mailed copies of the plan to political leaders of both parties, and promoted my ideas on several websites. At that time there was still the possibility that a workable proposal would make a difference with my own retirement plans. That window of opportunity closed more than five years ago, so now I'm just one of the hundred million who will take whatever we can get from SS... no matter how badly the younger generations get screwed.

 

[tonycarguy]

There are many CEOs who came from an unrelated industry (it's common in high tech), and some are successful. I don't think there's a correlation between prior experience in the particular industry and likelihood of success. Regardless, I like the fact the new CEO is from another industry. You want someone who's not stuck in the old ways of thinking.

 

[PT1]

 Originally Posted By: Vizzy

 Originally Posted By: PT1

 Originally Posted By: BuickGN

 Originally Posted By: Pablo

If he can't boot the union it doesn't matter if he doesn't know his hat size.

X2

+3 Since the union is now a major owner....forget it.

Exactly. GM NEEDS to build desirable product, end of story.

They really should NOT be allowed to call the company General Motors because it is no longer GM.

 

[swalve]

 Originally Posted By: tonycarguy

There are many CEOs who came from an unrelated industry (it's common in high tech), and some are successful. I don't think there's a correlation between prior experience in the particular industry and likelihood of success.

Agreed- we can't predict how someone will perform at that level just by what industry they have worked in in the past. This guy gets honesty points for saying "I don't know anything about cars." I'd rather a guy say that than try to fake it. The meat of the issue is what he does from there- does he learn about the industry and surround himself with people to handle the details? Or does he view his ignorance as an asset and (worse) look at others' knowledge as a hindrance? It's kind of the same with my job- I fix computers. I know a lot about fixing computers. But I don't know jack squat about how this application or that application is supposed to work. So I go into a client's location and say "show me how it is supposed to work". Sometimes they look at me like I'm a moron for asking that, because they mistakenly believe that's a sign of weakness. When it's the opposite- admitting ignorance and asking to be shown how something works is an asset. YOU show me how it's supposed to work, and I'll figure out how to make it do that. My grandfather did the same thing in his career as a mechanical engineer. He'd get sent to these plants that make things he knows nothing about on machines he's never seen before. He'd go in and get the big picture from management, and then he'd go to the operator of the machine and say "what's wrong with it?" The operator would tell him, and then he'd get to work fixing it. Being a CEO is sort of the same thing on a different scale- you go into a place and learn about the business and then set about fixing it. (Although this guy seems to be an idiot. Evidenced by his "these are my pipes" thing at ATT. Hey idiot, that's how it works! SOMEONE is paying for those pipes! It's not like google just came in one night and hotwired themselves to his network. They pay for their pipes, customers pay for theirs, and ATT makes it work.)

 

[Tornado Red]

This morning, the vice-president of product development for GM was on CNBC, and I have rarely heard so much political a**-kissing from someone supposedly not working for a politician or political party. Out of perhaps 12 or 15 responses to questions, there was not a single direct or honest answer -- he was merely responding from talking points which could have been written by a White House flunky. Even when CNBC reporters interview people who are under indictment, they usually get answers more honest and candid than this GM vice-president provided.

 

[jsharp]

CNBC is owned by GE that's headed by Jeffery Immelt. Our friend Jeff just happens to be one of the presidents economic advisers. Nope, no conflict of interest there at all. Objective news if there ever was any...

 

[Tempest]

 Originally Posted By: mrsilv04

 Originally Posted By: Tempest

You do indeed need someone at the top that understands the business. Different labor, markets, materials, marketing methods, etc. These are all different from industry to industry.

A good CEO will surround him/herself with better talent than him/herself. That way the labor issues, the market issues, the material issues (etc) will all be covered.

He will be taking his orders from the people that hired him so it really won't matter.