![]() ![]() Though, it may have been less a matter of him personally than it was the times. Roger Smith was – evidently – a very smart and capable GM executive. A finance guy, as most of GM CEOs have been. (Why must publically held American companies always insist on installing finance people to run companies that are operational in nature?) And he saw that GM was in trouble. He tried several “experiments.” The problem was, GM – as most companies – didn’t know what to do with the experiments. The experiments either completely failed (reorganization, excessive investment in unproven automation) or succeeded in the narrow sense but failed in the sense that the company didn’t know what to do with the success (NUMMI, Saturn).īack to Wagoner, who was by most accounts a very smart and capable manager, well-respected to this day by almost everyone who worked with him (not as idolized as Jack Smith, but respected). ![]() When he took over as CEO, the company was so very clearly in trouble (despite the progress Jack Smith had brought), yet his very first statement as CEO was that, “the company is doing great, we have a great plan, everything is great – we will stay the course … “ My biggest problem with him was that he always, always stated that the course was correct and all the company has to do was stay the course. ![]() To the end of his tenure, that was his line. To some extent, I suppose, a chief exec has to speak the party line. But, as chief exec, he must not only speak the party line himself, but determine the line that others must speak. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |