Should Wagoner go?

[hotrodalex]

He has to stay. Playing musical chairs in the executive offices would just make things worse, I imagine.

I think I agree with that. Wagoner knows the works and should know roadblocks to fixing it by now. So if you get a new guy he will have to learn all of that and it will take longer.

[FlatBlackCaddy]

The fact that this question is still a debate scares the shit out of me, if we don't do something soon GM could face bankruptcy....ohh we are? we will? possibly by the end of the month?


Seriously, the guy has had plenty of chances to make DRASTIC changes. Instead he has just kept the old girl pointed toword the iceberg. At best he has backed off the throttle alittle and hoped that it would "bounce" out of the way. He is weak, and GM needs a leader now more than ever.

[SVT666]

Do some of you even know how long it takes to make drastic changes in a car company?  No?  Neither do I, but I do know it's longer then 2 years since product cycles are about 5 years.

[S204STi]

If Dodd is looking for somebody who needs to move on, maybe he should look in the mirror.  He's a major figure behind the Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac debacle.  I don't think the handmaiden of that disaster ought to be deciding whether other people ought to be held accoutable for much lesser disasters.

Damn good point sir.

[S204STi]

Do some of you even know how long it takes to make drastic changes in a car company?  No?  Neither do I, but I do know it's longer then 2 years since product cycles are about 5 years.

The hand was writing on the wall almost a decade ago.  Do you really think this is the first time GM has had to consider axing several makes?  Of course it isn't, and the high fuel prices have been around for several years, with forcasters predicting a persistent long term rise in prices.  While GM has made great strides over the last 3-4 years in terms of quality they are still woefully dependent on the truck and SUV market, which is their downfall right now.

[r0tor]

I think a "car czar" will be the ultimate failure.  The czar will more then likely be not knowledgeable about the business, and since its appointed by congress will be pressured politically for things like "green technology" if it makes business sense or not. 

I'm hearing all of these comments about the companies are failing because they are trying to build big vehicles in a time when everyone wants fuel efficient ones.  I'm sorry, but small cars do not generate enough profit to keep a GM afloat with all the UAW legacy costs and they do not sell in the massive quantities they need either.  Honda is only selling 5,000 Fit's a month and Toyota is not doing much better with the Versa and they are making no profit on them.  This is not a blip on the radar of the quantities or money GM needs to sell its cars.  The lack of a GM competitor in that segment is overall not significant in their situation.

If you compare their sales to Honda's, you'll see they really are behind in the Civic/Accord/CR-V segments.  The Malibu and Cobalt have made significant strides to catch up under Wagoner but probably will not be close enough yet until the next product cycles.

[Byteme]

If there's anybody's head I want to see on a platter, it's Ron Gettelfinger's (along with the rest of the UAW.) I just don't see how the companies ever expect to turn themselves around if they have to drag the UAW behind them.

I don't disagree that the UAW is a hinderance to the automakers.  But the UAW isn't responsible for the lousy design and engineering in domestic cars, nor are they responsible for the indifferent dealer network and poor service experiences many doemestic buyers complain about.  I'll admit that alot of those failings are simply perception, but in this business perceptions are probably as important than actual product content.

[r0tor]

I don't disagree that the UAW is a hinderance to the automakers.  But the UAW isn't responsible for the lousy design and engineering in domestic cars, nor are they responsible for the indifferent dealer network and poor service experiences many doemestic buyers complain about. 

yet, GM still sells more cars then any other maker in the world... they just have 10x the overhead to put up with

[SVT666]

The hand was writing on the wall almost a decade ago.  Do you really think this is the first time GM has had to consider axing several makes?  Of course it isn't, and the high fuel prices have been around for several years, with forcasters predicting a persistent long term rise in prices.  While GM has made great strides over the last 3-4 years in terms of quality they are still woefully dependent on the truck and SUV market, which is their downfall right now.

Oh I agree, but you can't blame the current leadership for these woes.  Wagoner = 3 years, Mullaly = 2 years, Nardelli = 1 year.

[the Teuton]

Does no one else see that Nardelli came to Detroit in a $210 million parachute package he got after screwing up Home Depot?  It's things like that why congressional Dems are being so hardcore with the executive pay issue.  Yet his credibility has come up nowhere in any of these hearings.  Why?

[Lebowski]

Does no one else see that Nardelli came to Detroit in a $210 million parachute package he got after screwing up Home Depot?  It's things like that why congressional Dems are being so hardcore with the executive pay issue.  Yet his credibility has come up nowhere in any of these hearings.  Why?

Nardelli is a dirtbag ... but it's not Congress' job to police executive pay.

[Lebowski]

Oh I agree, but you can't blame the current leadership for these woes.  Wagoner = 3 years, Mullaly = 2 years, Nardelli = 1 year.

Wagoner has been Chairman since 5/2003, and he's been CEO since 6/2000.  That's 8 years.  And prior to that, he was COO (since '98), and he's worked at GM effectively his entire career.  He doesn't exactly represent new blood or new thinking, he's an insider to whom GM's flawed way of doing business is likely ingrained.

[SVT666]

Wagoner has been Chairman since 5/2003, and he's been CEO since 6/2000.  That's 8 years.  And prior to that, he was COO (since '98), and he's worked at GM effectively his entire career.  He doesn't exactly represent new blood or new thinking, he's an insider to whom GM's flawed way of doing business is likely ingrained.

Wagoner has only had carte blanche for 3 years.  Since he has become CEO a lot has changed at GM and the quality has dramatically improved.  Unfortunately badge engineering is as bad as it ever has been.

[the Teuton]

[Lebowski]

Wagoner has only had carte blanche for 3 years.  Since he has become CEO a lot has changed at GM and the quality has dramatically improved.  Unfortunately badge engineering is as bad as it ever has been.

He's been Chairman & CEO for 5+ years and CEO for 8+ years, and President/COO for ~2 years before that.  He's been at GM his entire career which means the flawed GM business model is the only thing he has any hands on experience with.  He doesn't exactly have the "not my mess" excuse a true outsider like Mullaly has. 

[MidnightDave]

I'll just say this paraphrased from AutoWeek a few years ago, when Wagoner was asked by a press bug if he was a car guy, he replied, "What's a car guy?".

In this era, Ferdinand P's don't run big companies and I understand that, but come on! Shouldn't he at least have some grasp on his product and his customer base?

I think their collective arrogance on their junket to the hill screwed 'em, and coming back in Hybrids was lipstick on a pig.

As much as I hate it, b/c I've owned (nearly) every domestic product they built for a decade, ('65-'75), Chevy is done b/c GM is done, and a variety of factors contributed to that, not just or particulary Wagoner.

Dang few companies that existed in 1908 exist today, it's just the ways of business. My advice to anybody is to keep your skills up, b/c through your choice or theirs, there are no more long term employers.