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.

  • ED I don't know what GM is thinking.I have a 2020 one nice vehicle.Got rid of Camaro and was going to buy one.Probably won't buy another GM product.Get rid of all the head honchos at GM.This company is a bunch of cheapskates building junk that no one wants.
  • Lostjr Sedans have been made less practical, with low rooflines and steeply raked A pillars. It makes them harder to get in and out of. Probably harder to put a kid in a child seat. Sedans used to be more family oriented.
  • Bob Funny how Oldsmobile was offering a GPS system to help if you were lost, yet GM as a company was very lost. Not really sure that they are not still lost. They make hideous looking trucks, Cadillac is a crappy Chevy pretending to be fancy. To be honest, I would never step in a GM show room now or ever. Boring, cheap ugly and bad resale why bother. I get enough of GM when i rent on trips from airports. I have to say, does anybody at GM ever drive what everyone else drives? Do they ever then look at what crap they put out in style fit and finish? Come on, for real, do they? Cadillac updated slogan should be " sub standard of the 3rd world", or " almost as good as Tata motors". Enough said.
  • Sam Jacobs I want a sedan. When a buy a car or even rent one, I don’t want to ride up high. I don’t want a 5-door. I want a trunk to keep my stuff out of sight. It’s quieter, cars handle better, I don’t need to be at the same height as a truck. I have a 2022 Subaru Legacy Touring XT, best car ever, equipped as a luxury sedan, so quick and quiet. I don’t understand automakers’ decisions to take away sedans or simply stop updating them — giving up the competition. The Camry and Accord should not be our only choices. Impala and Fusion were beautiful when they were axed.
  • Spamvw I think you need to remember WHY the big 2 and 1/2 got out of the car business. Without going political, the CAFE standards signed into law meant unless you had a higher gas mileage fleet, you couldn't meet the standards.The Irony is that, the law made sedans so small with low roof lines, that normal people migrated to SUV's and Trucks. Now we get worse mileage than before.
Next