I’m not as pessimistic as others here about the political reaction to GM’s coming farce of a viability plan. Even without existing wide spread public doubts about the bailouts, both banks and Big 3, there will be lots of opportunity for grandstanding Republicans to jump in front of the cameras and spout off about their new-found concern for deficit spending and the threat to the American way that unions represent, even without bailout money ripped from the desperate grasp of non-union tax payers.

If you are a truly excellent student, strongly consider MIT’s LFM program, which is a joint production of the engineering and business schools. Graduates are in platinum demand everywhere.

With that being said, most of the 25% of my MBA class that were engineers went on to Wall st. to places like Lehman Bros. and Bear Stearns.

That’s such an incredibly complex question. Often times it’s situational: the kind of person who can lead Toyota or Matsushita is not the same kind of person you want leading General Motors or IBM, let alone Bank of America, Deloitte, Proctor & Gamble, Apple or the like. Some organizations what strategists, other motivators, still others cost-cutters or product visionaries. The problem is that, and this is especially the case in North America, too many companies bought into the Jack Welch methodology without really thinking about the differences between GE (the Mother of Horizontal Conglomerates) and their industry.

Take, say, Carlos Ghosn: he was exactly who Nissan needed when they were bleeding red ink and lacking focus, but he’s not who they need right now. Kat Watanabe’s conservative stewardship may not be what Toyota needs now—it’s hard to say. Steve Jobs is an example of someone who was very ill-suited to Apple in it’s first decade, but perfectly so now.

And then you get into people like George W. Bush or Ronald Regan who are a textbook leaders, provided you read the right textbook.

I think it’s clear that Rick Wagoner, his directors and many underlings (Lutz and La Neve in particular), are not the people GM needs now. Alan Mullaly is ok, but I question if Mark Fields is a good fit for Ford (he seems hit-or-miss). I don’t think Bob Nardelli is fit to be night manager at McDonalds, but obvious Cerberus feels differently.

Engineering Masters vs. MBA really depends on what your career goals are

I think a lot of people confuse MBAs and CA/CGAs, including the people who hold both designations. Engineers can be MBAs; Accountants can be MBAs. I’ve met more than a few people with PhDs in mathematics and/or computer science with MBAs. Most MBAs start life as B.Comm and/or CAs; the MBA is really a polishing on existing credentials, much like you might have a B.Sc in Environmental Science or Biology, then go to law school and practice Environmental Law. It’s a complementary degree with an emphasis on business, and I think it’s just coincidental leanings that most MBAs tend to be accountants.

I’ve never met someone who holds a CA (not MBA) and a P.Eng or PhD.

I’m sure they’re out there, but I haven’t met them. I think the problem what MBAs often have is that they tend to groupthink with other MBAs, or only listen to the MBA perspective. That’s not an MBA thing, as much as it is a Bad Leader thing. I’ve seen engineers do it, if not as much, and I see it all the time in medicine and disturbingly often in law.

Leadership can be very much a two-way street. As a leader, you need to recognize who and when you’re actually able to lead. A lot of leaders can’t, or wont do this.

Thanks. I’m still going through some internal debates, but leaning towards MBA. I guess I can always pick up an engineering master later, right?

Engineering Masters vs. MBA really depends on what your career goals are. Engineering Masters will allow you to assume technical rolls and advance your career to a certain point. An MBA gives you knowledge of the business side of the equation that often times engineer don’t know/understand. An MBA will allow you to advance into a management roll easier than a technical Masters degree.

At the same time, leadership can’t be learned through an MBA. An MBA will simply provide the tools necessary to understand the financial, accounting, strategic marketing, etc. end of the business.

Personally I feel that an MBA on top of at least an undergraduate degree in engineering builds great potential for management of companies focused on tangible products (not finance based companies like banks).

(Fair disclosure: I have an undergraduate degree and Masters degree in Engineering).

This could probably be a whole other topic, but what makes a good leader? Does the piece of paper hanging on your wall matter at all? Can leadership be learned at all, or do you need to be born with it?

Which is better (or worse), a buisness degree and an MBA, or an engineering degree and a technical masters degree?

Personally, I’m a mechanical engineer looking to go to grad school. To advance my carreer, it’s been recommended that I get an MBA. But I think I would get more personal satisfaction out of a masters in thermodynamics or something similar.

So I’d like the opinion of the B&B. Two part question: Is an MBA really that helpful to have? And does an MBA give you any kind of leadership authority/ ability?

FWIW, my employer’s previous CEO was an engineer, and he seemed pretty well aware of financial issues (and how the lower-level engineers were good at spending money). It’d be a bad idea to use too broad of a brush when attempting to paint stereotypes of CEOs based upon their previous career experience.

What’s clear to me is that the folks one step lower on the foodchain need to be damn well versed in their functional roles; i.e. engineers guiding product development. It’s far less clear what guys like Ron Zarrella were good at doing.

Wagoner is an interesting fellow in his own right – he seems poorly suited to strategic leadership, and has yet also failed to use his prior background in finance to ensure that at least this part of GM is well-managed. Coming clean also doesn’t seem to be a skill in Wagoner’s toolbox – GM need to have its come-to-Jesus moment in spring 2005, and its failure to do so had made life much tougher for a lot of people in the industry.

Wait a few months for the Flex to get the EcoBoost motor. More efficient, more power, what’s not to like?

Perhaps all GM vehicles are improving, but so are the vehicles of other manufacturers, so GM is not improving its RANKING. It’s entirely possible that GM’s reliability relative to that of other companies may not be improving, even as its vehicles get better.

And, for the record, the new Malibu has received good reliability ratings from Consumer Reports. The problem is that there are still too many dogs in the lineup.

An observation – this is the first time in many a long day that I’ve read that folk are (gasp) praising Ford and actually saying they’d recommend and even buy a Ford. Ties are changing.

Got to admit that I’m staggered that the folk at GM didn’t see what’s been happening at Ford the last 2 years and try and do something, anything. Do think Rick knows where all the BoD skeletons are?

Nope.

Look at the reliability data out there. Sure they have a few high points. But whether you look at CR, JDP VDS or True Delta you will find the majority of their vehicles are below the industry average. Many are near the bottom.

Look at the last 3-4 years results, the trendline for them is not up. Flat, maybe down.

For contrast look at Ford and Hyundia over the same period. Dramatic improvements. They get it.

GM, getting it? Puhleeeze. There is no statistical evidence of an overall improvement.
If Hyundia and Ford can do it then there are only two reasons why GM hasn’t. 1. They don’t know how. 2. They don’t want to.
That’s rather the point here.

Sure GM is making some better designs with nice interiors.

So do plenty of companies that don’t tend to create a long term relationship with their service personnel.

If your buying Debt 3 support the guys that ARE changing for the better. Buy Ford.

Regards,

Bunter

Ken – From someone who knows, you hit the nail squarely on the head. The best example is the quality parity myth that was/has been perpetuated as soon as the Century and Regal got rated highly by 80 year olds in JD Power.

BostonTeaParty – “GM is getting it”

No. They aren’t. That line is pulled out every single year at the auto show as they point to 2 of their 60-some odd nameplates as shining examples of the new GM. Remember, the 2005 Lacrosse was held up as a sign that they were ‘getting it’ too.

The first sign of this I imagine will be in about, oh, 28 days from now or so. It will leak that The Plan for recovery will consist primarily of some truly contorted financial arrangements that the other parties (creditors) will never agree to, and at the center of the whole plea for another TARP hit will be the Volt. You can probably expect to see some rough sketches or other hints of a Volt crossover, Volt truck, Volt-van…hell, rename the joint General Volt. Might even be some hybrid action in there as well. As a consolation to the reality-mongers, they might just kick Saturn out of the family. Saturn is a refugee and I can see real buyers who want in this auto-market seeing a chance to pick up one of the best dealer networks in the country for peanuts.

The end result though is politicians agree to kick GM down another rock for the pipe, with of course a serious expectation for Voltage. There will be Nancy Pelosi driving – and Ron Gettelfinger riding shotgun – in a Volt around the Capitol or some such photo-op that gets exposure on C-Span. At that point, the company will no longer be in command of its own destiny no matter who “runs” GM past Rick’s tenure.

You make a good point. I would still say you are more likely to find a good leader among the ranks of the non-MBA and finance types. Accountants, I don’t know about, but here is my problem with the MBA and finance types.

The average MBA or finance corporate climber is skilled at getting money and energy flowing towards his desired goals. That can be used for good or bad, but is mostly directed at self interest. Same for engineers in many cases, they do tend to design what they really want to see built. However, when the engineer fails, the results tend to be obvious, and everyone learns from that. When the MBA fails, it gets blamed on the engineer or someone else a lot of the time. Same with us sales people.

If you don’t buy from us, we blame the product, but if you do buy from us, we take credit. It’s no jedi mind trick, but it does let you stay positive enough to keep going.

I may be oversimplifying reality, but for the majority of times, I see engineers tending to be practical and results driven people who learn throughout their careers to make better decisions. Like you said, they may strive for silly goals, but those guys don’t tend to rise up or are more easily kept in check by the board.

OTOH, MBA types are results driven, but without the practicality. They don’t really seem to be able to nail down why any particular action was successful. That makes it harder to repeat the successes. It also makes them hard to work for.

Lastly, there is the effect that promoting the MBA side of the shop has on the whole organisation. Tempering the engineers with MBA and finance restraint works great, but when your company ceases to be the place where the engineers and sales types really run the show, your company starts to die a slow death. A lot less companies die from great product, bad business practices than the other way around.

Bailout or no bailout I truly don’t see GM surviving at all.