NYT: The Secret of GM's Success: Rick Wagoner. No Really.
The New York Times entered the irony-free zone this morning, with an op ed entitled “GM’s Secret Success.” WTF? Is one of the Gray Lady’s ambassadors about to call GM’s descent into bankruptcy and subsequent raid on the public purse a “success”? Nah. The author of the forthcoming tome “Why G.M. Matters: Inside the Race to Transform an American Icon” wants you to know that GM CEO Rick Wagoner is a genius interruptus. “In reality, Mr. Wagoner has presided over the most sweeping transformation of G.M. since the 1920s,” William J. Holstein opines. “He has reversed management’s long practice of meekly going along with the demands of the United Auto Workers, notably with a deal to transfer health care costs to a union-controlled trust over the next two years.” Ah, a tour of an alternate reality. Cool. But why stop there? Why indeed.
“A decade ago, suggesting that Mr. Wagoner attempt these restructuring goals would have been ridiculed as unrealistic. But these moves have largely succeeded and by 2010 should strip $5,000 from the cost of every G.M. vehicle…
“The quality gap between G.M. and Toyota has been closed…
“On the innovation front, Mr. Wagoner was responsible for introducing OnStar, the onboard communications and navigation system, and he has made a huge commitment to lithium-ion batteries, which will power the Chevrolet Volt, an extended-range electric vehicle.
“Lastly, Mr. Wagoner has globalized G.M. to a degree that it never has been before. The company’s strong position in China has helped support the difficult turnaround effort in North America.
“Before the financial crisis tanked American automotive sales, Mr. Wagoner had almost guided the country’s largest industrial company into a new era, demonstrating great resilience in the face of intense global competition. Making him a scapegoat might be politically expedient but it ignores the very tangible progress he has achieved.”
GM CEO’s not a scapegoat for GM’s descent into disaster. He’s responsible. Not all of it, obviously. But enough that future historians– rather than propagandists– will place the blame squarely where it belongs: on Wagoner’s shoulders.
Meanwhile, what in the world motivated The New York Times to print this piece of self-promoting tripe? Doesn’t the op ed department even talk to their business editor?
More by Robert Farago
Comments
Join the conversation
I am no Wagoner (or Lutz) fan by any means, but... ...maybe (just maybe) he has implemented changes that we, the ignorant masses, have not been pprivvey to or have overlooked and those changes just need time to come to fruition? Also, I have been meaning to say this for awhile but the Big3 sold SUV's and Trucks because Americans DEMANDED them. When a customer walks into a dealer to buy a Chrysler Minivan, the salesman doesn't shuffle them into a Smart Fourfour! He may shuffle them to a Durango or CUV, but never would he say "You know, this is going to suck if gas prices go to $4.00...". Not having a competitive small car is a problem but when the only small cars you sell are to the rental companies, what's the point? The only failure here is that GM and Ford don't utilize their European cars (Opal/Ford Europe) for their econoboxes rather than producing them in the US and duplicating effort. Hybrid/Green/Blue is just marketing BS. When gas is under $2 a gallon, no one will care. Besides, if it mattered, we would have micro cars such as the Ligier or Axiom and we would have clean 2-stoke technology. Obvioulsy it doesn't. Arrrg! This is so frustrating!