I'm still trying to get over how the "New, more leaner GM" left out their most Lean alliance. Interested to also see the employee numbers vs cars produced in the USA Today General Motors milestones graphic, is there something that can be read into that too?

Let's be honest! They're just trying to get themselves sorted out, where would we be without them ;-)

Like or Dislike: 0  0

I just read an article where GM passed on building a new assembly plant in Tennessee and instead picked Michigan for political purposes. All of the government controlled auto companies in Europe failed to be successful in the US and GM is sure to follow.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

In the WSJ article there were pictures of the four senior leaders. Three of the four are actual car guys — but none are involved in design or manufacture. It's as if the senior team believes that manufacturing is still just something only middle managers and knuckle-draggers do. I also note that no one on the senior team seems to be in charge of quality or continuous improvement. Small wonder the NUMMI joint venture had no effect on them.

I wish them well in the new GM, but I'm not holding my breath.
/Dr. Pete

Like or Dislike: 0  0

LINK

It starts with:

"There was an omission from the press conference called to announce the birth of "New GM", the restructured General Motors that emerged, blinking from bankruptcy protection, at dawn yesterday. There was no mention of GM's cars."

He was very negative about GM's future.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Fritz's message is "customers, cars, and culture." I don't know if that's in order or just 3 things. However, if culture is important, then you must do some SYMBOLIC things to signal the change to the employees. You don't have time to go around and give people new experiences and new conversations one at a time, so you must select some things that are an experience for everyone. Changing something considered sacred is perhaps the best way to get people's attention.

Changing the logo certainly fits in that category. It's dramatic, more expensive that we like to think it is, and reversed decades of tradition. I like the choice of trying to be dramatic, and it does send a signal.

HOWEVER…What is the message? That is less clear. Obviously, the message is to be green (I assume the environmental way and not the nauseous way). But Fritz's message is "customers, cars, and culture." It's hard to say that green is about customers, because quite frankly customers are still not buying with a predominately green bent. Fuel efficiency still only matters when it costs money. Yes, the Prius has sold well but only to the lead-users and status-seekers, not to the masses. So green can't be about customers. Is it about cars? I guess so. But the message isn't very clear, and certainly isn't well connected to the theme of "customers, cars, and culture."

So for boldness and decisiveness, I give Fritz an A. Bold and visible. For leveraging the chance to send a clear message, however, I give him a D. Not a total failure, but certainly a miss. Let's hope the next steps really start building that "culture" around "customers and cars."

Like or Dislike: 0  0

This op-ed from a former AT&T person says it all:

LINK

Like or Dislike: 0  0