Jump to content

Joe Hinrichs "out" in leadership shakeup at Ford.


Recommended Posts

Just now, probowler said:

I don't know enough about hinrichs and Farley to know if this is good or not... I know the business has been rough but It does seem like odd timing. Why now right before the fruits of the rebuild are realized? 

 

 

The reason to do this now, is that there are other extremely important launches coming in the next couple years. Ford  can not afford a repeat of the Explorer launch.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Message from the top: If you fail in spectacular fashion for something you are in charge of, you are accountable. That accountability comes in a we are pushing you out with a nice severance package and retirement benefits. So he won't be hurting financially. This is the pound of flesh that people were looking for in the Explorer debacle.  Can someone verify that Chicago also got a new plant manager recently?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, jcartwright99 said:

Message from the top: If you fail in spectacular fashion for something you are in charge of, you are accountable. That accountability comes in a we are pushing you out with a nice severance package and retirement benefits. So he won't be hurting financially. This is the pound of flesh that people were looking for in the Explorer debacle.  Can someone verify that Chicago also got a new plant manager recently?

 

I have to say I can't disagree with this-

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, 351cid said:

My comments to friends was that, although I'm not convinced he is entirely the issue, this is a start & better than not doing anything. 

 

Exactly, its showing that even though it might not have been entirely your problem, people are going to be held accountable for it no matter what. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just read that Hackett says the rocky Explorer launch was not why Joe "retired."  Hackett says the entire management team is responsible for the problematic Explorer launch.  Still, you don't "retire" somebody if they're doing their job.  Something else is likely going on.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, mackinaw said:

Just read that Hackett says the rocky Explorer launch was not why Joe "retired."  Hackett says the entire management team is responsible for the problematic Explorer launch.  Still, you don't "retire" somebody if they're doing their job.  Something else is likely going on.

 

Sometimes they say different things publicly vs. privately.  If they're not saying this privately they're losing a really good teaching moment about holding people accountable for mistakes.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, akirby said:

 

Sometimes they say different things publicly vs. privately.  If they're not saying this privately they're losing a really good teaching moment about holding people accountable for mistakes.

 

Oh yeah.  Publicly, Hackett is all nicey nice.  Privately, I suspect they had a totally different discussion.  

 

Even Bill Ford had nice things to say about Mark Fields when Fields "retired."  In reality, the Ford and Fields weren't talking to each other.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, mackinaw said:

Just read that Hackett says the rocky Explorer launch was not why Joe "retired."  Hackett says the entire management team is responsible for the problematic Explorer launch.  Still, you don't "retire" somebody if they're doing their job.  Something else is likely going on.

 

46 minutes ago, akirby said:

 

Sometimes they say different things publicly vs. privately.  If they're not saying this privately they're losing a really good teaching moment about holding people accountable for mistakes.

Well wasn't that nice of Hackett to bring the entire "team" in for the blame.  I hope he included himself in that.  How did the F-15O conversion go when they went to aluminum? Seems like that went fairly well and that was as difficult I would think as the Explorer launch.  What was different?  Well Hackett wasn't at the top then.  And just maybe the focus wasn't on..."just get it done" but rather .."Let's get this right".

 

How about it you Ford inside guys?  Any validity to that?

 

I have  to say I wasn't at all surprised at this move, but to me it raises a lot of questions.  Who set up the structure giving Hinrichs such a broad span of control?  I know that flat organization charts are the norm today but was that part of the problem?  And Farley?  If I recall Bill Ford couldn't wait to hire him from Toyota as he was the best marketing guy in the world when it came to cars.  Well we know how successful Ford has been selling cars. 

 

And now, Farley is the best thing since canned beer.  So we have a non engineer at the top, and a non engineer in the next slot responsible for such things as building  vehicles.

 

Could get interesting.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Bob Rosadini said:

 How did the F-15O conversion go when they went to aluminum? Seems like that went fairly well and that was as difficult I would think as the Explorer launch.  What was different? 

 

Different plants.   Even though the whole plant was retooled and the body changed to aluminum, the basic platform wasn't changed much.  But probably the biggest difference is they had two plants so production continued at one plant while the other one was retooled and vice versa.   So they could take a little extra time if needed.   By contrast once they started the conversion Explorer production was 0 so there was far more pressure to get it up and running quickly.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Joe sold everyone on the plans for Chicago and eventually got his way based on his confidence it would work. 

 

It didn't, and one of the company's 3 most important nameplates has suffered at a time when it should be thriving. 

 

From what I can tell, we're going to see a slow (24 month-ish) transition of duties from Hackett to Farley. I was *not* in favor of putting Farley on top last time he was being considered, but he has done a ton of growing and maturing in the interim. He's a great fit to really shape the aggressive future path of the company that Bill is insisting on. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, PREMiERdrum said:

From what I can tell, we're going to see a slow (24 month-ish) transition of duties from Hackett to Farley. I was *not* in favor of putting Farley on top last time he was being considered, but he has done a ton of growing and maturing in the interim. He's a great fit to really shape the aggressive future path of the company that Bill is insisting on. 

 

John McElroy or Autoline Daily speculates that Hackett may leave later this year.  He turns 65 in April which is Ford's mandatory retirement age, (unless the Board grants an extension).  Your 24 month timeline makes more sense to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...