Bluecon Posted January 4, 2007 Share Posted January 4, 2007 So Bill jr. has been running the show for 8 years (or whatever) and this is to be considered a perfectly acceptable job he has done, although the company is now fighting for its life. We are to take it that Bill jr. was in no way responsible for the situation that FMC now finds themselves in. Apparently it is not his fault because: A/ Jac Nasser left the company in a bad way B/ People didn't tell him the truth (LOL) C/ He apparently didn't know what he was doing Will Mullaly also be allowed 8 years to correct the situation? Because A/ Bill jr. has left Mullaly with a company that is in much worse shape than it was when Nasser left. B/ People won't tell him the truth C/ He has no experience in the auto business If Mullaly is a repeat of Bill jr. FMC is DOA. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted January 4, 2007 Share Posted January 4, 2007 Richard, some of the data in the outside world can be confusing if you have never been on the inside. I agree, which is why, of the various articles containing various allegations, the only assertions I have any confidence in are ones that are seen over a sufficiently long period of time from a variety of sources, and which are backed up by events that correspond with the allegations. For instance, I recall multiple "insider reports" that Bill did not trust the quality of information he was receiving (I believe I saw that reported in the Detroit News, definitely in the New York Times, and I think also Automotive News), and Bill's decision to appoint his brother-in-law as a gatekeeper was pretty thoroughly regarded as a move based on an inability to sort out the quality of information he was receiving. The article by Jim Womack, on the other hand, isn't what I would classify as inaccurate reporting. He states that he had a meeting with Nasser, where Nasser laid the cards on the table regarding Ford's future in NA, and that they discussed a number of difficult strategies, which ultimately were not implemented. I mean, Womack might be lying about the subject of the meeting, but what else would they have discussed? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted January 4, 2007 Share Posted January 4, 2007 We are to take it that Bill jr. was in no way responsible for the situation that FMC now finds themselves in. Did I say that? As chairman, Bill was not directly responsible for what happened at Ford (Nasser was). During his period as chairman of the board, I think a fair case can be made that Ford failed to properly oversee his CEO; but then again, at that time, in this industry, as in many others, CEOs did not really consider themselves answerable to their board. During his period as CEO, yes, Bill was responsible for what happened. "The Buck Stops Here" and all that. However, in the same way that no CEO is responsible for employees that act in a grossly negligent manner, Ford is not responsible for the assorted misbehavior of his employees. It's like this: He as CEO is responsible for a decision made based on bad information. However, he isn't responsible for the bad information. Someone elects to lie, obfuscate, cavil, play politics or otherwise, that's on their own head, no one else's. And, like most people, I'm willing to assign greater blame to those who willfully act, than those who act out of ignorance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluecon Posted January 4, 2007 Share Posted January 4, 2007 WOW! Are you ever naive. Obviously never seen the boys in managment at the Big 3 in action. It is ruthless, they don't play nice. Bill jr. is not playing tiddlywinks he is running one of the largest companies in the world. You don't just mess up and then say it's not my fault they didn't tell me the truth. (unless Daddy controls the company) So does Mulally get 8 years to figure out that everybody is not warm and fuzzy and they might be lieing to him? And they do joke in the business that Billy jr. is the 'Turtle on the fence post'. Management at GM and Chrysler kind of consider him their secret weapon. Of course it looks like Mullaly is going to upset the apple cart. A more realistic take on the situation. "Bill Ford glared when he was asked whether his family could lose control of the company his great-grandfather Henry founded in 1903. ``I don't understand why that would ever have to happen,'' Ford said, cutting short an October television interview in Beijing. ``There's no reason to think that any change in ownership structure needs to take place.'' The Fords, who command 40 percent of shareholder votes with just 3.75 percent of the company's shares outstanding, may be among the few people hanging on to that mantra." http://www.ohio.com/mld/ohio/business/16350676.htm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted January 4, 2007 Share Posted January 4, 2007 That's a clever dodge of the personal integrity issue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluecon Posted January 4, 2007 Share Posted January 4, 2007 That's a clever dodge of the personal integrity issue. Exactly, what is the personal integrety issue? 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.