NYT: GM Tries Harder

Robert Farago
by Robert Farago

You know how terrorism experts talk about increased “internet chatter” as foretelling some kind of attack? On Monday, GM will release its post-C11 financial results which, thanks to dubious accounting, could very well mean nothing. Even so, I’m getting the feeling that there’s some bad news a brewin’, ’cause the MSM is kissing some major GM butt today. First, the Freep shows GM’s Chairman of the Board the love that dare not grant it an interview. Now the Times’ Bill Vlasic, late of the Detroit News, shows up with a piece that supposedly reveals the depth and breadth of GM’s much ballyhooed “cultural change.” Mea culpa comes in the form of “ After bankruptcy, G.M. Struggles to Shed a Legacy of Bureaucracy.” While I’m a firm believer that cultural change starts at the top—such as, I dunno, firing the ancien regime that led to GM’s nationalization—I’m all ears, Bill. Where’s the evidence that la plus ca change, la plus ce n’est pas la même chose?

In the old General Motors, employees were evaluated according to a “performance measurement process” that could fill a three-ring binder.

In Terry Woychowski’s case, for example, his job as director of G.M.’s vehicle engineers was spelled out in exhaustive detail, and evaluated every three months.

But in his new job as vice president — a promotion he was given 20 days after G.M. emerged from bankruptcy — his performance review will be boiled down to a single page, something he had never seen in his 29 years with the company.

Mr. Woychowski said he felt the grip of G.M.’s legendary bureaucracy start to loosen, something he never imagined possible. Now, such reviews are being scaled down and simplified across the company.

“We measured ourselves ten ways from Sunday,” he said. “But as soon as everything is important, nothing is important.”

So, a shorter evaluation form. Uh-huh. OK. That’s great! So what happens to the new, shorter evaluation forms then? Bill? Hello? Nine paragraphs later . . . we still don’t know.

Replacing a binder full of job expectations with a one-page set of goals is just one sign of the fresh start, said Mr. Woychowski.

And the other sign? The delayed debut of the Chevrolet Cruze, to fix the vehicle’s six-speed gearbox for unspecified problems. Oh wait, that was yesterday’s excuse. (After the original generic excuse about a ensuring a “flawless launch.”) Today we learn that “The delay . . . was needed to improve engine performance and the quietness of the Cruze’s ride — important areas of comparison with the segment-leading Honda Civic.”

Anyway, point taken, although citing a failure to launch as a sign of success is a pretty twisted way of looking at things. And Vlasic might have mentioned that the delay is to a timetable set for Chevy by the . . . the Chairman of the Board. You know, the former telecoms guy. Whitacre.

Bill finishes with an odd anecdote, if ever there was one.

“There has been fear in the organization, and people have been afraid for their jobs,” he said. “But now we need to be open and transparent and trust each other, and be honest about our strengths and weaknesses.”

As he drove north, Mr. Reuss, 45, reflected on his own career at G.M. He started as a student intern in 1983, and worked his way up the engineering ranks. One of his biggest assignments was serving as the executive in charge of one of the most ridiculed cars in G.M. history, the Pontiac Aztek.

The Aztek was half-car, half-van, and universally branded as one of the ugliest vehicles to ever hit the market. Mr. Reuss had little to do with the design, but his job required him to defend it as if it were a thing of beauty.

It was brutal, he said during an interview as he drove, to grit his teeth and pretend that the Aztek was something to be proud of.

“It was something that flame-hardened me personally,” he said. “I’m in the ‘never again’ business. I wouldn’t wish that experience on anybody.”

And there you have it. In the new GM, everyone tells the truth and does their best because they’re not afraid of losing their job like they used to be–even though the lifer responsible for the Aztek is now in charge of GM’s global engineering. Who knew?

Robert Farago
Robert Farago

More by Robert Farago

Comments
Join the conversation
3 of 8 comments
  • Asdfghjkl Asdfghjkl on Nov 14, 2009

    This site will always have anti-GM articles no matter what. In their eyes, GM will and can never do right!! I sort of wonder who pays them.

    • Happy_Endings Happy_Endings on Nov 14, 2009

      If you're going to say a company has changed, it's not a good idea to use as the best example of the change as "well, there's new employee evaluation forms". I've worked at my current employer for about 10 years. Every year, there is a new way to evaluate employees.

  • Accs Accs on Nov 30, 2009

    Ummm.. Last time I checked.. there are A DOZEN gutless, horribly styled, obese and style-less vehicles in GM's FLEET NOW! I can begin with GMC and end with the interior.. of one of the best CARS Gm makes.. the Vette. Wish it on no one. It got wished on you, and Im sure a couple thousand other little fruitless bastards over there have the same horrible job. How bout this. How bout ya start designing 3BOX cars people give a shit about, like the SPARK and the EL Camino. And STOP SHOVING obese and gutless CRAP down the throats who HAVE TO BUY DOMESTIC.. like the Lambdas AND the VUE COPIES! How bout ya start designing cars smaller than the Malibu that are actually midsized (for once FUSION is PERFECT!) Theyd lie to their own mother.. and say they were forced to all for a GM paycheck err MY MONEY!!

  • Redapple2 Love the wheels
  • Redapple2 Good luck to them. They used to make great cars. 510. 240Z, Sentra SE-R. Maxima. Frontier.
  • Joe65688619 Under Ghosn they went through the same short-term bottom-line thinking that GM did in the 80s/90s, and they have not recovered say, to their heyday in the 50s and 60s in terms of market share and innovation. Poor design decisions (a CVT in their front-wheel drive "4-Door Sports Car", model overlap in a poorly performing segment (they never needed the Altima AND the Maxima...what they needed was one vehicle with different drivetrain, including hybrid, to compete with the Accord/Camry, and decontenting their vehicles: My 2012 QX56 (I know, not a Nissan, but the same holds for the Armada) had power rear windows in the cargo area that could vent, a glass hatch on the back door that could be opened separate from the whole liftgate (in such a tall vehicle, kinda essential if you have it in a garage and want to load the trunk without having to open the garage door to make room for the lift gate), a nice driver's side folding armrest, and a few other quality-of-life details absent from my 2018 QX80. In a competitive market this attention to detai is can be the differentiator that sell cars. Now they are caught in the middle of the market, competing more with Hyundai and Kia and selling discounted vehicles near the same price points, but losing money on them. They invested also invested a lot in niche platforms. The Leaf was one of the first full EVs, but never really evolved. They misjudged the market - luxury EVs are selling, small budget models not so much. Variable compression engines offering little in terms of real-world power or tech, let a lot of complexity that is leading to higher failure rates. Aside from the Z and GT-R (low volume models), not much forced induction (whether your a fan or not, look at what Honda did with the CR-V and Acura RDX - same chassis, slap a turbo on it, make it nicer inside, and now you can sell it as a semi-premium brand with higher markup). That said, I do believe they retain the technical and engineering capability to do far better. About time management realized they need to make smarter investments and understand their markets better.
  • Kwik_Shift_Pro4X Off-road fluff on vehicles that should not be off road needs to die.
  • Kwik_Shift_Pro4X Saw this posted on social media; “Just bought a 2023 Tundra with the 14" screen. Let my son borrow it for the afternoon, he connected his phone to listen to his iTunes.The next day my insurance company raised my rates and added my son to my policy. The email said that a private company showed that my son drove the vehicle. He already had his own vehicle that he was insuring.My insurance company demanded he give all his insurance info and some private info for proof. He declined for privacy reasons and my insurance cancelled my policy.These new vehicles with their tech are on condition that we give up our privacy to enter their world. It's not worth it people.”
Next