jpd80 Posted June 1, 2017 Share Posted June 1, 2017 (edited) May 31, 2017 @ 3:00 pm Michael Martinez - Autonews.com UPDATED: 5/31/17 4:04 pm ET -- adds details DETROIT -- Days before his May 19 ouster as CEO of Ford Motor Co., Mark Fields was proposing to fire his top lieutenant, Joe Hinrichs, in an effort to relieve some of the pressure he was facing from a skeptical board of directors, Automotive News has learned. Fields intended to get approval from the board for his decision to fire Hinrichs during the week of May 14, sources said. Fields' plan backfired, however, when the board decided instead to part ways with him and communications chief Ray Day, following a Friday, May 19, meeting. Instead of a pink slip, Hinrichs was given a promotion to the newly created position of president of global operations, in charge of Ford's global product development; manufacturing and labor affairs, among other things. Wow, now the story starts to leak out that maybe Fields was trying to throw Hinrichs under a bus.. Fields faced increased scrutiny during meetings with Ford's board of directors ahead of the company's annual shareholders meeting on May 11. The board had grown impatient with Fields' strategy for the future and irritated with the automaker's sluggish stock price, which had fallen nearly 40 percent since he took over in July 2014. Fields believed he could deflect pressure from himself and pacify the board by ousting Hinrichs, the sources said. I wonder if that was the last straw for Bill Ford and the board...... Edited June 1, 2017 by jpd80 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fuzzymoomoo Posted June 1, 2017 Share Posted June 1, 2017 I wonder if that was the last straw for Bill Ford and the board...... Wouldn't surprise me. Joe Hinrichs by all accounts is really well liked. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted June 1, 2017 Author Share Posted June 1, 2017 Wouldn't surprise me. Joe Hinrichs by all accounts is really well liked. Maybe Fields saw him as a rival rising through the ranks or maybe he is capable of unraveling some of the BS. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twintornados Posted June 1, 2017 Share Posted June 1, 2017 Sounds like Fields was reverting to "Old Ford" instead of embracing "One Ford" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pioneer Posted June 1, 2017 Share Posted June 1, 2017 Sounds like Fields was reverting to "Old Ford" instead of embracing "One Ford" The whole company has regressed. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Rosadini Posted June 1, 2017 Share Posted June 1, 2017 Sounds like Fields was reverting to "Old Ford" instead of embracing "One Ford" The whole company has regressed. I do believe you both have a point here. And no doubt as the "heat in the kitchen" went up, not only did Fields need a "bold move" he also must have been sensitive to who was a potential to take his place. Lessons learned in "Corporate Survival 101" I would imagine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J-150 Posted June 1, 2017 Share Posted June 1, 2017 The whole company has regressed. I dont think they ever changed. Executives kept it under wraps as Mulally was zero tolerance on the horse crap. As soon as he left, they resumed the games. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted June 1, 2017 Author Share Posted June 1, 2017 I dont think they ever changed. Executives kept it under wraps as Mulally was zero tolerance on the horse crap. As soon as he left, they resumed the games. Correct, all those executives did was play to Mulally's rules and engage with each other as directed. As soon as his influence was removed, the regression began under Fields and the old ways began to surface in both dealer promotions and production line / supplier efficiency / cost savings that compromise product quality. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4d4evr-1 Posted June 1, 2017 Share Posted June 1, 2017 Correct, all those executives did was play to Mulally's rules and engage with each other as directed. As soon as his influence was removed, the regression began under Fields and the old ways began to surface in both dealer promotions and production line / supplier efficiency / cost savings that compromise product quality. this is what happens when the goal is to keep the job vs doing a good job for the company 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rperez817 Posted June 1, 2017 Share Posted June 1, 2017 The whole company has regressed. Alan Mullaly said "Ford had been going out of business for 40 years, and no one would face that reality." When Alan left Ford, the company practically started "going out of business" again. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted June 2, 2017 Author Share Posted June 2, 2017 (edited) While Ford is not financially imperiled, the empire building had already begun again as managers went back into protection mode in case the higher peck order chiefs came calling with questions. The difference today was the stronger response by Bill Ford who has now removed two CEOs he saw as unfit to continue. That is why I think that Ford is in safe hands. Jim Hackett's fresh eyes will ask questions that no internal CEO normally would, that View will help foster a new culture. Fields must have thought he had the CEO job until retirement and obviously looked to protect himself from rising stars. He revealed himself when he tried to throw Hinrichs under a bus, Fields removal sends a powerful and positive message to the rising stars...that returning to a culture of self preservation over collaboration will not be tolerated. Edited June 2, 2017 by jpd80 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted June 2, 2017 Share Posted June 2, 2017 this is what happens when the goal is to keep the job vs doing a good job for the company Just like career politicians..... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4d4evr-1 Posted June 2, 2017 Share Posted June 2, 2017 Just like career politicians..... I truly believe some choose to do a good job for their constituents... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fuzzymoomoo Posted June 2, 2017 Share Posted June 2, 2017 I truly believe some choose to do a good job for their constituents... I've got some nice oceanfront property for sale in Nebraska 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted June 2, 2017 Author Share Posted June 2, 2017 no doubt some start out with good intentions but getting there and staying there come at a cost. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pioneer Posted June 2, 2017 Share Posted June 2, 2017 I truly believe some choose to do a good job for their constituents... A career politicians job is not to represent their constituents. Their job is to get re-elected. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmc523 Posted June 2, 2017 Share Posted June 2, 2017 A career politicians job is not to represent their constituents. Their job is to get re-elected. That's why I think there should be term limits on congressmen and senators too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted June 2, 2017 Share Posted June 2, 2017 That's why I think there should be term limits on congressmen and senators too. Exactly. Having term limits would force them to have non-political careers and encourage them to do unpopular but necessary things. Today they only do what they think will get them re-elected and what their constituents want is not always what is good for them or the rest of us. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted June 2, 2017 Share Posted June 2, 2017 A career politicians job is not to represent their constituents. Their job is to get re-elected. But the way you get re-elected is to do what your constituents want. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tbone Posted June 2, 2017 Share Posted June 2, 2017 That's why I think there should be term limits on congressmen and senators too. Agreed. It should never be a career. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmc523 Posted June 2, 2017 Share Posted June 2, 2017 Agreed. It should never be a career. It was never intended to be a career by the founding fathers either. The idea was for regular citizens to go represent others and then return to their normal lives after serving. Unfortunately, now they wouldn't pass an amendment limiting their own terms, even if it would be best. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J-150 Posted June 2, 2017 Share Posted June 2, 2017 But the way you get re-elected is to do what your constituents want. No, it is to appear to do what your constituents want. But what you actually do is appease the speacial interest groups that funded your campaign so they will fund the next one. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted June 2, 2017 Author Share Posted June 2, 2017 (edited) Is there a requirement in the US to declare all funding contributions to politicians? We do that in Australia and it tends to keep the lobbyists in check because the electorate then sees where that funding comes from. In that situation, career politician become more skilled in their profession and actually do a better job of governing, The real concern is that ordinary people with absolutely no political savvy can be elected and make absolute mess of the situation, it should be frightening to think that your life could be in the hands of completely inept people making life changing decisions. Watching American politics from abroad is hilarious, it's like watching a dog chew its own legs off. Edited June 2, 2017 by jpd80 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J-150 Posted June 2, 2017 Share Posted June 2, 2017 Is there a requirement in the US to declare all funding contributions to politicians? We do that in Australia and it tends to keep the lobbyists in check because the electorate then sees where that funding comes from. In that situation, career politician become more skilled in their profession and actually do a better job of governing, The real concern is that ordinary people with absolutely no political savvy can be elected and make absolute mess of the situation, it should be frightening to think that your life could be in the hands of completely inept people making life changing decisions. Watching American politics from abroad is hilarious, it's like watching a dog chew its own legs off. There are a mmyriad of methods to send money to a candidate off the books. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted June 2, 2017 Author Share Posted June 2, 2017 There are a mmyriad of methods to send money to a candidate off the books. But if you make it illegal to do that and back it up with consequences, the game get interesting, No? 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.