mackinaw Posted September 13, 2012 Share Posted September 13, 2012 From Reuters: (Reuters) - Ford Motor Co's (F.N) board of directors is considering keeping Chief Executive Alan Mulally involved with the No. 2 U.S. automaker after his retirement as nonexecutive chairman, a person familiar with the matter said on Thursday. The board, which is meeting Thursday in Dearborn, Michigan, is laying the groundwork to promote Mark Fields, the head of Ford's North and South American operations, to chief operating officer, said the source, who declined to be named discussing internal company matters. Bill Ford, the great-grandson of company founder Henry Ford, will remain executive chairman, the source said." Article here: http://www.reuters.c...E88C14P20120913 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J-150 Posted September 13, 2012 Share Posted September 13, 2012 The in-between step is Fields as COO and President of Ford Worldwide. Malally as CEO and Chair. Then the CEO title transitions to Firlds and away from Mulally. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted September 13, 2012 Share Posted September 13, 2012 Non-executive chairman. What a stupid title name. If you already have Executive Chairman then wouldn't Non-executive chairman just be "Chairman". That would be like having "Senior VP" and "Non Senior VP". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rkisler Posted September 13, 2012 Share Posted September 13, 2012 From Reuters: (Reuters) - Ford Motor Co's (F.N) board of directors is considering keeping Chief Executive Alan Mulally involved with the No. 2 U.S. automaker after his retirement as nonexecutive chairman, a person familiar with the matter said on Thursday. The board, which is meeting Thursday in Dearborn, Michigan, is laying the groundwork to promote Mark Fields, the head of Ford's North and South American operations, to chief operating officer, said the source, who declined to be named discussing internal company matters. Bill Ford, the great-grandson of company founder Henry Ford, will remain executive chairman, the source said." Article here: http://www.reuters.c...E88C14P20120913 I could be wrong, but this just doesnt' sound like something Mullaly would want to do. When he took over, he requrested (and got) full access to Bill Ford and the Ford family. And he also got a commitment from Bill to let him run the show. I think he realizes it's important to have a "buck stops here" leader, and I think he would view a role like this as unnecessary fiddling and a distraction. Mullaly really cares about Ford and its successful future which is his legacy. I just can't see it. However, in typical generous corporate payouts to high level employees, I'm sure he will get very lucrative "consulting " contracts after he leaves (helps to keep food on the table). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
7Mary3 Posted September 14, 2012 Share Posted September 14, 2012 How about 'Mullaly stays on in a fake position to keep investor confidence from tanking after he retires'. Question: Will we see a return to the fifedoms under Fields? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted September 14, 2012 Share Posted September 14, 2012 It seems somewhat doubtful... If the mindset in PD & manufacturing requires a preponderance of evidence to justify a unique design or method, that goes a long way to preventing the insular silos that prevailed before. The problem will be maintaining a culture of honesty at the top. Corporations are messy and inefficient at their best; at their worst, they're paralyzed by inaccurate data. It's in the interest of succeeding CEOs to continue to reward honesty. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted September 14, 2012 Share Posted September 14, 2012 I think keeping Mulally around in an advisory role to the new management team is a good idea regardless of what you call it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvrsvt Posted September 14, 2012 Share Posted September 14, 2012 I think keeping Mulally around in an advisory role to the new management team is a good idea regardless of what you call it. I'd look at it as a "greybeard" role...someone you can ask when you have a problem that has experience and knowledge to share...he wouldn't be involved with day to day decision making. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted September 14, 2012 Share Posted September 14, 2012 I'd look at it as a "greybeard" role...someone you can ask when you have a problem that has experience and knowledge to share...he wouldn't be involved with day to day decision making. Exactly. You don't just throw away that much experience and knowledge if you don't have to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvrsvt Posted September 14, 2012 Share Posted September 14, 2012 Exactly. You don't just throw away that much experience and knowledge if you don't have to. And its a nice retirement perk/income Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
03 LS Posted September 14, 2012 Share Posted September 14, 2012 I'd look at it as a "greybeard" role...someone you can ask when you have a problem that has experience and knowledge to share...he wouldn't be involved with day to day decision making. Exactly. You don't just throw away that much experience and knowledge if you don't have to. It's more than that. Lutz is (or was) a special advisor for GM with no title. I think Ford wants to keep him on the board, with a title equal to/above CEO, but not above Bill Jr. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted September 14, 2012 Share Posted September 14, 2012 It seems somewhat doubtful... If the mindset in PD & manufacturing requires a preponderance of evidence to justify a unique design or method, that goes a long way to preventing the insular silos that prevailed before. It starts as innocent desire to fill the needs of regional customers and ends up being, "we know our market better than you", preventing the corporate culture fragmenting and sliding back to that extreme will be an important step in maintaining "One Ford" The problem will be maintaining a culture of honesty at the top. Corporations are messy and inefficient at their best; at their worst, they're paralyzed by inaccurate data. It's in the interest of succeeding CEOs to continue to reward honesty. A culture of honesty also requires an environment of trust, something that can only be maintained where players don't feel threatened every time they have problems. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edstock Posted September 15, 2012 Share Posted September 15, 2012 A culture of honesty also requires an environment of trust, something that can only be maintained where players don't feel threatened every time they have problems. As opposed to the Akerson psychopathic style of "management" . . . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twintornados Posted September 15, 2012 Share Posted September 15, 2012 It's more than that. Lutz is (or was) a special advisor for GM with no title. I think Ford wants to keep him on the board, with a title equal to/above CEO, but not above Bill Jr. It only took 10 replies to the original post to invoke Maximum Bob.....The difference is Lutz is Nutz and Mulally is not. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted September 15, 2012 Share Posted September 15, 2012 While I wasn't the one to invoke Lutz, I will make this observation: At the C level, it's not how much you know about cars, it's how much you know about people. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted September 15, 2012 Share Posted September 15, 2012 (edited) While I wasn't the one to invoke Lutz, I will make this observation: At the C level, it's not how much you know about cars, it's how much you know about people. How much of GM's plan is wanting Cadillac to build certain types of cars and just expecting luxury buyers to front up and pay for a pretend BMW? I would love to see the market research on ATS and CTS as RWDs versus using corporate FWD/AWD platforms, I smell car guy decisions... Edited September 15, 2012 by jpd80 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted September 15, 2012 Share Posted September 15, 2012 It's a very 60s mindset. I've been re-reading the Dust and the Glory, and it's amazing to think that drag races used to demonstrably lead to sales spikes. The world just doesn't work that way anymore. But, apparently, they still think it does down at the RenCen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted September 15, 2012 Share Posted September 15, 2012 (edited) It's a very 60s mindset. I've been re-reading the Dust and the Glory, and it's amazing to think that drag races used to demonstrably lead to sales spikes. The world just doesn't work that way anymore. But, apparently, they still think it does down at the RenCen. How does this happen Rich, how does such a large corporate with access to plenty or research data, throw all of that into the trash and go with their gut instinct? I don't doubt that GM will have sales success with Cadillac but getting those sales comes at a heck of a cost in terms of investment and resources expended on another dedicated platform.. It flies in the face of SRX and XTS which are both capturing impressive sales whith only a fraction of the Alpha platform's development costs Edited September 16, 2012 by jpd80 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edstock Posted September 16, 2012 Share Posted September 16, 2012 How does this happen Rich, how does such a large corporate with access to plenty or research data, throw all of that into the trash and go with their gut instinct? IMHO, it's the difficulty of recognizing the difference between corporate wants and corporate needs. The two are rarely the same. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted September 16, 2012 Share Posted September 16, 2012 How does this happen Rich, how does such a large corporate with access to plenty or research data, throw all of that into the trash and go with their gut instinct? Selective memory. Pointing at things like the Aztek, and instead of saying, "How do we fix the process?" saying, "We can't trust the process." All the while, you reassign blame for past failures: "The GTO was a great car. We just had terrible advertising/a bad exchange rate/the economy tanked/etc." Instead of accepting that you need to make low risk/low reward decisions due to the literally hundreds of thousands of people who depend on you, you let your power go to your head, and ignore the very weighty responsibility that goes with it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted September 16, 2012 Share Posted September 16, 2012 (edited) Selective memory. Pointing at things like the Aztek, and instead of saying, "How do we fix the process?" saying, "We can't trust the process." All the while, you reassign blame for past failures: "The GTO was a great car. We just had terrible advertising/a bad exchange rate/the economy tanked/etc." Instead of accepting that you need to make low risk/low reward decisions due to the literally hundreds of thousands of people who depend on you, you let your power go to your head, and ignore the very weighty responsibility that goes with it. Yeah, I recall comments from Lutz (?) that GTO was sold into traditional GTO aread but didn't get upbut when switched to California, the sales took off, so GTO's success or otherwise happened due the car being bought by a different demographic to the intended one, that's a sure sign of poor research.... And then, the G8 was a repeat dosage, it sold but not as expected, round three...Chevrolet SS....???? In a nutshell, this is not a problem with product per se, it's a a fundamental corporate managerial problem, yet GM persists in the belief that with minor changes the plan will work With the right corporate global styling a GT Falcon might work because it would be a Ford brand being sold through Ford brand dealerships not a Holden being rebadged as a Chevrolet or a Pontiac or a Cadillac...that's where the plan falls down for GM, they can never be "One GM". They don't understand their buyers, they don't treat them with the intelligence or respect due, that's why GM fails in my eyes. Edited September 16, 2012 by jpd80 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted September 16, 2012 Share Posted September 16, 2012 when switched to California, the sales took off Well, that would be a most relative 'take off' in sales. I think the whole run sold maybe 30k units. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted September 16, 2012 Share Posted September 16, 2012 Well, that would be a most relative 'take off' in sales. I think the whole run sold maybe 30k units. LOL, too much disorganuzation with the plan, the original intent was as a Chevrolet, that IMO should have been the plan but stupid GM would not commit one way or another and then stick with it, showing total internal dysfunction.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edstock Posted September 16, 2012 Share Posted September 16, 2012 With the right corporate global styling a GT Falcon might work because it would be a Ford brand being sold through Ford brand dealerships not a Holden being rebadged as a Chevrolet or a Pontiac or a Cadillac...that's where the plan falls down for GM, Well, IMHO, the Holden was a good sled, and putting a Pontiac front clip or a Chev front clip is no different than Holden doing a mid-life styling re-fresh, just like the different front clips that Ford has done with the Falcon. So, what was GM's problem? IMHO, the GTO was a nice car, but a marketing failure from styling and the model name and the advertising to support it. Then the G-8 arrives. IMHO, nice sled, as nice as anything offered by other manufacturers, but the problem was, IMHO, it was a Pontiac — and GM had killed the brand equity with ghastly products over the preceding 20-25 years with ghastly V-6 pushrod engines, and the GM stumble to market a decent DOHC 16-v 4-cylinder engine, the lack of decent 4-speed automatics. IMHO, it drove a lot of buyers to Asian brands. So GM came up with the G-6, which, IMHO, was one of the stupidest model names possible. Then the G-5, IIRC and a G-3 (née Aveo). Compare to all the model names of the 50's and 60's and 70's, and "G" is the best Pontiac can come up with as a name? G-8? Gee, that sucks. my 2¢. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.