Good to see you here. It’s really shocking to me how little the automotive press tries to get an insider’s perspective on these organizations. They prefer to get all of their information from senior execs and PR, and neither really knows what’s going on among the people who do the real work. Thank you for providing some insight–I hope you’ll continue to write.

After the research 50merc mentions, I provided GM with a report. Executive summary here:

http://www.truedelta.com/execsum.php

Do the points I made still ring true, ten years later? The report called for a radical cultural change. Though at least two people made sure that Lutz saw this summary, and even pieces of the report, I didn’t expect GM to make such a large change.

On the mood inside the organization ten years ago: my report stated that the dominant mood within the organization then was frustration. There’s nothing any of us thinks that at least 100 people inside GM aren’t already thinking. But it was very hard then for anyone, even a senior exec, to get anything done. And it’s probably the same name.

I have been planning a couple of editorials. I have some long plane flights in the next few weeks–maybe then.

Sure, at Toyota, it may take less people, but I’ll tell ya, it takes just as long or longer. I’ve worked with both, and Toyota is just as friggin slow as GM in everything they do. Even more meetings, honestly. I’ve never been to so many meetings in my life as I did at TTC. Good lord, I think there was a 20-person meeting once to decide when to have the next meeting.

There was denial in the organization, but not everywhere. Not for Jim Queen, anyway. I remember about 5 years ago Jim Queen spoke of the need to eliminate “low performers” (=people with poor attitudes who didn’t show enthusiasm for the organization). IHMO I think he was too vague about the definition for it to be as effective as it could have been. In any case I didn’t hear anything about that in the last couple of years or so (or anything from Queen, for that matter).
He also warned about a “step-function change” in the future if we didn’t implement steady gradual change in the present. I did like that instance of management appropriating engineering terms for business usage. And there was definitely gradual change that bought time for GM. Ed Koerner wasn’t in denial, either, and I think there was less fear with him.

On the other hand, during the “Good to Great” infatuation, my director (who got to go to Disney World for the big management conference with the author of that book) labeled Rick Wagoner a “Level 5″ executive.

One person I’d like to hear from is Michael Karesh. He spent a long time researching decision-making in GM. Although the outlook wasn’t so bleak then, he may well have observed how the corporate culture affects those who live within it.

@KeithF: I didn’t mean to say that admins (=PC term for “secretary”) are always supposed to organize what GM liked to call “employee engagement” activities in their group. Of course they are a team effort, but the secretaries often take a prominent role in such efforts because the nature of their role in the organization makes them more effective than others generally might be.

The admin I was referring to here used to take a lead role in stuff like this before conditions deteriorated. Nobody took up the slack and group morale was therefore that much worse. (The group was headed up by the Roger Smith-type that messed with my career move, and morale was affected accordingly.) I mentioned the contract designers because they were physically right next to us and despite their status as contract workers they made life better for the people in my group. The last group I was in had healthier morale, despite no admins in the area–the team did in fact work to put together many fun events for us.

I don’t want to focus too much on this — there’s just too many things wrong with the whole situation. But I’ll just say that the biggest reason I want C11 is that I want GM to quit being a second-rate automaker, like it’s been since before I was born. I’d rather have GM go C7 than to muddle through ‘09 and ‘10 with a public lifeline just to go back to being half-ill and wheezing again. What’s the point of that?

GM has devolved into a company more focused on meeting “Metrics” and cost cutting. There are more processes developed to ensure accountability, but this actually results in avoiding accountability.

A good example of this:
At GM it take more than 15-20 people to approve a design change. This includes a 15min review with the senior managers.
At Toyota it takes 4-5 people.

But my area never did anything fun like that because we had only 1 admin and she was overwhelmed taking care of several executive directors–no Christmas potluck or anything.

Nice to see that in the bubble at GM, even the people who think there is a problem still think it is normal for an “admin” to organize events for the teams. He/she is in for a rude awakening when they get to the real world, where if people want fun events for their teams they do it themselves.