General Motors Zombie Watch 6: CEO Henderson: "I Hate Myself"

Robert Farago
by Robert Farago

That’s not exactly what GM CEO Fritz Henderson said to BusinessWeek, as part of the bankrupt automaker’s charm offensive. The exact quote was “I know I have to re-prove myself.” So, just as there’s a “bad” GM (the one that latched onto the federal teat) and a “good” GM (the other one that latched onto the federal teat), there’s now a “bad” Fritz Henderson (the one who weaseled his way to the top of GM’s dysfunctional corporate culture) and a “good” Fritz Henderson (the one who wants to reform the stultified system that spawned him). As we say in these parts, good luck with that. Those of our Best and Brightest who’ve seen large companies try to reform their not-so-wikkid ways will recognize the resulting lip service . . .

In the meantime, Henderson is tackling GM’s glacial decision-making process. A couple of four-hour meetings have been cut in half. Gone are the “premeetings,” when the agenda for the real meeting was set. “I don’t have time for that,” Henderson says. Delegation, never GM’s strong suit, is now an imperative. In early April, just after Treasury made him CEO, Henderson and several executives were discussing whether to add some pricey features to a future Buick model. Some wanted to save a few bucks while others figured they needed to step out and show consumers that the brand is truly upscale. After some debate, Henderson turned to Buick-GMC boss Susan Docherty. “You’re the vice-president of Buick,” Docherty recalls him saying. “Make the call.” She opted to spend the money, and that was fine with the CEO. “Fritz is creating a culture where we don’t need 17 meetings,” Docherty says. “In the old GM, we would have to hear from everybody.”

A couple of points . . .

1. Did Fritz have a pre-meeting before the meeting to decide whether or not to lose the pre-meeting before the meeting that eliminated the pre-meeting? What’s that about SEVENTEEN meetings? Is that hyperbole or “out of the mouth of bankruptcy babes”?

2. Where are the consultants? Promoting this kind of stuff—both internally and externally– is what helps America’s consultants afford/drive BMWs. Oh here they are!

Last month, Henderson hired Booz & Co. consultant Jon R. Katzenbach to help make GM’s middle managers less risk-averse and more willing to make decisions. Katzenbach and his team have begun scouring the company for mavericks adept at getting their ideas past a recalcitrant bureaucracy. Katzenbach asked each department chief to name five candidates. In most cases, he says, they aren’t top managers or people on the fast track. Typically they have toiled at GM for a long time and know how to game the system. The plan is to make their attitudes and work habits the norm, not just a rarity among the few who will buck the system.

Did I say “good luck with that” already? But rest assured that Booz & Co. understand automobiles. Well, engines. OK, “ empathy engines.” Katzenberg’s paper is full of piercing glimpses into the obvious, but one of his bullet points is worth repeating vis à vis GM. “A fundamental misunderstanding, by a company’s executives, of the real nature of the customer experience their company provides.” How does Mandark laugh again? Haa ha haa, haa ha ha ha ha!!!

You want to talk about self-delusion?

In a June 1 blog post to employees, Henderson asked for suggestions and criticism. Several workers said people are afraid of challenging the status quo. When pressed in an interview on the culture of fear, Henderson said he gets criticism all the time, and then added: “I’ve never had a situation where people were afraid to speak up.” Maybe so, but that doesn’t mean managers further down won’t discourage new ideas from their underlings.

A perfect example of using “maybe so” to mean “you’ve got to be fucking kidding me.” Translation: Henderson is so insulated from genuine criticism, so drunk on GM Kool-Aid, he thinks he’s drinking coffee. A point which BW can’t resist making. Ish.

Henderson also says GM’s product planning group is just fine. Yet it has routinely missed major trends and rarely sets them. GM’s top-selling Chevrolet division, for example, is just this year launching decent crossover SUVs; rivals have been selling them for years. Plus, the product planners’ indecisiveness has led to many delays on new programs. It’s not that GM’s designers and engineers can’t work fast. They often wait for the “numbers dummies,” as GM product adviser Robert A. Lutz calls them, to hash over the research. By the time the green light comes on, GM has missed the moment.

So Lutz blames GM’s culture for his own failure. No wonder they’re keeping him on; he’s just stupid enough to blow the lid off of GM’s global incompetence. Of course, by thy bankruptcy thy shall be known, guys.

Robert Farago
Robert Farago

More by Robert Farago

Comments
Join the conversation
2 of 26 comments
  • Argentla Argentla on Jun 23, 2009

    GM's resistance to product innovation is a core value, going back to Alfred P. Sloan. Sloan declared, "if our cars were at least equal in design to the best of our competitors, it was not necessary [emphasis his] to lead in design or run the risk of untried experiments." Their faith in that principle is not without historical reason. For about 30 years, Ford busily created profitable market categories (personal luxury, pony cars, plush Lincoln Mark III-style boats), while GM was constantly flat footed. On the other hand, during the same period, Ford's market share remained constant and eventually started to shrink, while GM remained mighty. In a sense, it was almost a deliberate strategy, a kind of corporate equivalent to the Muhammad Ali rope-a-dope trick: let your opponents use up their resources doing new stuff, and then step in when they're exhausted and overwhelm them with the sheer might of your dealer body and customer loyalty. And it worked, for more than 30 years. The main reason it stopped working was that the Baby Boomers and the generations that followed were turned off by Detroit's lackluster low-end and small cars, and ended up progressing from VWs and Hondas to BMWs and Mercedes, without giving GM's hierarchy a second glance. Even so, in a company as big and as conservative as GM, taking a new tack that contradicts the sainted Sloan is a pretty big step, and GM has never really been able to, any more than Disney has ever had much success making edgy R-rated movies. It's just not in the corporate culture.

  • Potemkin Potemkin on Jun 24, 2009

    "I want a list of where GM’s Management MBAs went to school! Those places should have warning labels on them!" It's not so much where they went to school as the fact that degrees were valued more than performance and intelligence. Promotions were based on whether or not a person had a clue about business or managing people but whether or not the boss liked them and they had gone to his school for their MBA. Managers who can't assess subordinates because they don't understand the business pick MBAs so if the guy fails they can say "well he/she had a degree so they must know things". This lets the managers off the hook. We had an MBA who was universally not well thought of by his employees, management or peers get promoted by complaining he had an MBA so why didn't he get a promotion. On the other hand we had superintendents who were good enough to run the business for 30 years, who in the 80s, were forced to get more education or be demoted. The promotional credo should be, don't tell me what you know show me what you can do.

  • Arthur Dailey We have a lease coming due in October and no intention of buying the vehicle when the lease is up.Trying to decide on a replacement vehicle our preferences are the Maverick, Subaru Forester and Mazda CX-5 or CX-30.Unfortunately both the Maverick and Subaru are thin on the ground. Would prefer a Maverick with the hybrid, but the wife has 2 'must haves' those being heated seats and blind spot monitoring. That requires a factory order on the Maverick bringing Canadian price in the mid $40k range, and a delivery time of TBD. For the Subaru it looks like we would have to go up 2 trim levels to get those and that also puts it into the mid $40k range.Therefore are contemplating take another 2 or 3 year lease. Hoping that vehicle supply and prices stabilize and purchasing a hybrid or electric when that lease expires. By then we will both be retired, so that vehicle could be a 'forever car'. Any recommendations would be welcomed.
  • Eric Wait! They're moving? Mexico??!!
  • GrumpyOldMan All modern road vehicles have tachometers in RPM X 1000. I've often wondered if that is a nanny-state regulation to prevent drivers from confusing it with the speedometer. If so, the Ford retro gauges would appear to be illegal.
  • Theflyersfan Matthew...read my mind. Those old Probe digital gauges were the best 80s digital gauges out there! (Maybe the first C4 Corvettes would match it...and then the strange Subaru XT ones - OK, the 80s had some interesting digital clusters!) I understand the "why simulate real gauges instead of installing real ones?" argument and it makes sense. On the other hand, with the total onslaught of driver's aid and information now, these screens make sense as all of that info isn't crammed into a small digital cluster between the speedo and tach. If only automakers found a way to get over the fallen over Monolith stuck on the dash design motif. Ultra low effort there guys. And I would have loved to have seen a retro-Mustang, especially Fox body, have an engine that could rev out to 8,000 rpms! You'd likely be picking out metal fragments from pretty much everywhere all weekend long.
  • Analoggrotto What the hell kind of news is this?
Next