Discussion in 'OT Driven' started by just_another_on, Jun 10, 2009.
What do you guys think?
Business is business, amirite?
in for more fail.
his head should be on a pike in the public square
At least he's an outsider. GM insiders have been running the company into the ground for the past 15 years.
I have no idea what his track record is though.
not like the people at gm who knew about cars did well anyway
Well, seeing GM wasn't ran like a business with profits in mind for the last 30 years...
at&t was a pretty successful business, considering it had to be broken up by the us government.
His quote does make sense.
$10 says he does better than his predecessors.
the fundamental principles are still the same
and it might end up being a good thing that he can look at the situation from a different perspective seeing as it was "car people" who ran GM into the ground
GM should be broken up like AT&T was
GE should also be broken up
basically any company with subsidiaries that arent even related to the parent company should through anti trust law be broken up
Whats the point of this?
Hes running the business not engineering and building the cars
Bob Lutz did wonders for GM's product lineup and helped revive Chrysler in the 90s -- he is a bonafide "car guy".
Ron Zarella came from Bausch and Lomb and fucked up royally.
kinda like the fail created by the last 20 years of leadership by supposed auto experts?
why? that doesn't make sense. at&t was so powerful that it was an actual monopoly. there are plenty of other car companies that GM doesn't own.
I am a foot surgeon, brain surgery can't be that hard - it is still surgery.
Seems like a good idea to me.
Why is everyone acting like it is so uncommon for CEOs to join companies that are totally unrelated to their previous companies?
A turn around artist is a turn around artist.
they owned too many competing brands diminishing consumer choice
i was part of a regional grocery chain that got bought by another regional chain, as part of the deal they were forced to shut down stores in markets where they directly competed because of that
No. The widely known problem is that GM has been traditionally run by business managers who knew little about automobiles. Roger Smith, known as one of America's worst CEOs, saw GM go from having almost half the US market to having barely over a third in his decade as CEO. He started at GM as an accounting clerk and worked his way up through positions COMPLETELY UNRELATED to vehicle development.
The car guys who did work at GM like Lutz, Earl, and Delorean have done a tremendous amount of good.
On the other hand, Ford seems to be doing well under the leadership of an outsider from another industry.
Chrysler hired Bob Nardelli from Home Depot and... you can see what happened there.
It works so well for Chrysler.....