Comments

"We have met the enemy and he is us," is a line from Walt Kelly's Pogo.

Posted by Bill Kinnon at June 4, 2009 10:45 AM

Didn't someone also say, "Insanity is doing the same things over and over again?" or something like that.

BTW, you could say the same things about our Congress.

Posted by Wayne Hastings at June 4, 2009 12:31 PM

I second Bill's comment. But good stuff as usual.

Posted by Todd at June 4, 2009 12:32 PM

Wayne, my sentiments exactly. Except I heard it as "Foolishness: doing the same thing, expecting different results."

Lots of derivations. All apropos lately.

Posted by Dan Gunter at June 4, 2009 12:47 PM

Bill, don't know what my problem is; even in the Age of Google I mis-attribute this quote a couple of times a year!! (We'll fix.)

Posted by tom peters at June 4, 2009 12:50 PM

I like David Brooks, but at one point he put out a column that concluded Obama didn't have what it took to beat Hillary.

Posted by dan at June 4, 2009 1:03 PM

Rule #50. "Rules of Thumb." Alan Webber.

GM described well.

Posted by Dan Gunter at June 4, 2009 1:18 PM

Bill - I am humbled by your blog. Thank you, immensely. I found this entry particularly thoughtful and beautiful. Many are.

http://www.kinnon.tv/2009/05/random-thoughts-on-brokenness-heresy-paul-young-and-more-teapot.html

Finding your blog today was especially wonderful. Your "Pass Me Not" entry brought back such beautiful memories.

Thanks again. I shall visit frequently.

Posted by Judith Ellis at June 4, 2009 1:22 PM

Here is something a bit more frightening that what
David Brooks has to say.

http://uk.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUKTRE55344V20090604?sp=true

Posted by dan at June 4, 2009 2:27 PM

From Brook's article: "We’ve seen this before, albeit in different context: An overconfident government throws itself into a dysfunctional culture it doesn’t really understand. The result is quagmire. The costs escalate. There is no exit strategy."

So let the chattering classes now badger the new president endlessly about his "timetable for withdrawal" as they did the former president. Let aggrieved taxpayers camp out on Obama's doorstep with their signs and chants about "no taxes for GM."

Ah well, a man can dream...

Posted by Useless Sam Grant at June 4, 2009 3:35 PM

This blog entry is now fixed to show that the quote "We have met the enemy and he is us" is from Pogo. Our apologies to Walt Kelly. We won't get this wrong again!

Posted by cathy mosca at June 4, 2009 4:08 PM

Sam, "exit strategy" links to my question on one of these related posts of Tom's. Who decides how and when to collect what chips are remaining and leave the game (assuming they actually CONSIDERED any possibility of ever doing so.)

When you think about it, any HINT of the government trying to pull our tax dollars back out will likely send the stock market in a nosedive straight to terra firma.

Do you get the same feeling I do? That the government just painted us into a corner?

Posted by Dan Gunter at June 4, 2009 4:08 PM

"We have met the enemy and he is us."

I love this words... is really amazing!

Thanks Tom for your words!

Grettings from Buenos Aires,

Argentina!

Posted by Jorge Yunes at June 4, 2009 4:38 PM

Seriously thinking...

Our money is now invested in a company that most (if not all) of us agree is in big trouble. Can we seriously explore the questions any investor or venture capitalist would?

To wit,

We want to at least recover our investment, but ideally turn the venture into something that makes a return, so...

Do we think it can actually be done?

If we do, what will it take?

I'd love to hear other people's ideas. I have some thoughts of my own, but I don't claim to be the expert. Who knows, maybe we'll pick up on some sound ideas in the process that we can apply to our own businesses. I'm certainly open to learning in the process. If Tom's right, the ideas shared and generated here could probably be a lot better than what would come out of traditional b-school thinking.

Call this what you want, but I've resigned myself to the fact the money is in there and our only chance of getting it back is to see a real turnaround. Better to at least discuss the positive possibilities than the negative ones, right?

Posted by Dan Gunter at June 4, 2009 4:56 PM

"We have met the enemy and he is us" is the line everybody remembers from Pogo. But nobody remembers the line from the very next panel, the one where the little possum says "We are surrounded by insurmountable opportunity."

I read that 10 years ago in Robert X Cringely's book Accidental Millionaires.

Posted by Grant Rosenquist at June 4, 2009 6:41 PM

"...insurmountable opportunity."

That's a trip. Quite timely, too.

Posted by Dan Gunter at June 4, 2009 6:52 PM

dan - Thanks for the Eckert article. Besides the immense sadness of so many displaced families and unfunded arts organizations, there is also the concern of what's presented in the article, an authoritarianism born of economic power i.e., via the largest purchase of T-Bills by China (only followed by Japan) and dehumanizing cheap labor which enrich individuals by far more than groups (i.e., Waltons and employees?), where rulers rule as desired, hushing the voices of individual freedom, an intrinsic value of the human spirit.

While I appreciate the relationship developing between President Obama and Secretary Clinton, her statement in China earlier in the year, essentially excusing or better yet turning a blind eye to the human rights issues in China is indicative of a policy shift built on debt and not the rule of democracy based on human rights.

Our debt society largely created our current situation economic. I understand our dismissal of human rights with regards to China. This is clear. But the essence of authoritarianism presented in the article still concerns me. It can also be clearly seen that "China, Iran, Russia and Venezuela form a clique of authoritarian states that use their wealth and influence to undermine global democracy and rule of law."

Posted by Judith Ellis at June 4, 2009 7:33 PM

This is the problem with the blind rush towards globalization. It's my problem with what has happened with GM. We seem to value the free market more than freedom itself. We did not have to allow the automobile industry to fall apart. It is not solely the fault of the GM executives. Would we have accepted such poor management in our defense industries? A strong manufacturing base is as important as a strong Army. Now we are painted into a corner. On one of the Sunday morning talk shows, Henry Kissinger pointed out that the Chinese do not want North Korea to become so unstable that China becomes overrun with refugees. On the other hand, they do not want North Korea to become stable enough so they reunite with South Korea and the new country becomes a strong American ally on the Chinese border. That cleared something up for me, because I never understood why Germany reunited, but Korea has not.
Why is it that we feel pride as a nation when Michael Phelps wins a wheelbarrow full of gold metals, but when we ship our manufacturing base off to foreign shores, we explain it away as a form of progress called 'creative destruction'? Sometimes it seems that mere phrases are as dangerous as addictive narcotics.

Posted by dan at June 4, 2009 8:55 PM

"Success is the enemy," Jamshid Gharajedaghi.
When you are not watchful, your success will be your undoing. Success changes the game, and those at the pinnacle are frequently the last to notice the rule change.
GM will continue to be a popular b-school case study; v2. The conversations and ending are different, as are the lessons.

Posted by Carla Bobka at June 4, 2009 9:21 PM

This is a tough one for me. As a veteran of the GM system who escaped with my psyche somewhat intact (unfortunately, not my stock value), I still have many friends in key positions at GM. They are good folks. But I am not certain that the immense changes needed can be accomplished with the same management team. I note that there is not a single HR person listed as part of the GM team. (closest is labor relations). I believe GM needs a dramatic transformation, not just a restructuring. Henry Ford didn't improve on the horse, he replaced it. The new ads for GM are great...I just doubt their ability to live up to it If this is indeed Chapter One, don't we need a different author? I am excited about Roger Penske possibly acquiring Saturn. Saturn was well on its way to success when the GM system raised its ugly head and it became just another mediocre GM brand. Roger has worked magic with other failing GM ventures before (Detroit Diesel), so I am hopeful. Beyond the executive team, you still have a workforce that has been ingrained with a work ethic that rewards seniority over effort and results. I am hopeful for the Chevy Volt, but think a $40,000.00 car just aint going to make it in today's market, especially with the history of GM launches in the past. I wish them all well, but the first step has got to be an admission of failure, and then, a willingess to truly reimagine.

Posted by Mike Neiss at June 5, 2009 8:32 AM

Mike, just sharing an off-the-cuff impression triggered by your (thankfully) shared comment:

I don't see spending $40,000 on ANYTHING GM builds. I can't quite put a finger on why. But in my mind, $40K investment in a vehicle equates to a trip to the BMW dealership or somewhere similar. In fact, I'd probably go for the buy a minivan, get a free cheapie sedan type deal for that much money. With change left to pay the extra insurance premiums, to boot. I know I don't speak for everyone, but for me, if I HAD to spend that much money, it would probably be on what I'd call a "specialty" vehicle intended for special work-related needs, not just to haul the kids around.

Not meant to offend any GM team members or fans, because my main vehicle (which I use for work and personal purposes) is a 1998 Pontiac TransSport Montana van. That vehicle has had its glitches. Around 250,000 on the odometer now. I know GM is capable of building vehicles that combine practicality, styling, features, decent gas mileage, and overall quality. The problem is figuring out how to do it affordably so that when I buy it, it's at a good price AND they are making a profit. As basic as business sense gets.

Unfortunately, you're right. They can't do the way they are doing business now. And that spells a serious, serious changing of the guard and a LOT of other big changes. I actually want to see them pull it off. It would be one of the all-time greatest turnaround success stories (maybe THE greatest.)

If they do somehow, I'll bet we'll see a lot of things Tom has preached for years in the playbook.

Posted by Dan Gunter at June 5, 2009 9:51 AM

Dan, I don't claim to be an expert here, but I have worked on my share of vehicle launches in my career. By and large, the concept vehicles were in a word, way cool (ok, two words). All too often, numbers got in the way and cheaper and cheaper components were substituted to the point you couldn't recognize the initial concept. I do think it got to the point that it seriously impacted brand equity. Fake wood inlay on a $50K Corvette??? Let the designers design, and the accountants keep the books..they had their chance to run the company, and we all see where it got us. And to keep it fair, Bargaining Chairs of the UAW have to realize that everytime they fought to keep the job of someone with excessive absenteeism or even sleeping on the job, they harmed the brand of the UAW. Yes, it was the exception, but the blemishes stuck out like a stone chip on a newly painted vehicle. At least at GM, the union members voted on the shop rules and had them put in the contract. Fighting for someone who knowingly violates those rules just doesn't make sense.

Posted by Mike Neiss at June 5, 2009 12:07 PM

Mike, no disagreements from me. Being real with you, I grew up on union wages (Uniroyal Tire Company, Opelika, AL plant -- closing down completely by October, just by the way.) But I don't condone the idea of letting troublesome employees continue to be such, and I know that like party politics, defining two distinct sides (company vs. labor) is basically a formula for disaster. There is a middle ground somewhere that spells success for the company AND fairness to the employees. Based on my experiences (and I've seen it from the inside more than most people would believe, for reasons too numerous to go into), unions by and large have outlived their usefulness and become just as dysfunctional, obsolete, and perhaps downright greedy as the GM management is purported to be.

I don't begrudge the retired GM folks having pensions and health care benefits, but those have risen exponentially, and at some point, basic economics (basic math, for that matter) tells you there's a point at which the system simply can't do anything BUT fail. Add to that management and a corporate structure that's even bulkier and more sluggish than the worst of their automobile designs, and you're doubly condemned to failure.

Shifting gears a bit to your other reference...

I rarely like "concept" designs, as they are way too radical looking for me (call me an old fart, but I say they do.) Earlier, I alluded to the fact that I've seen a couple (rare couple) of models actually sitting at the dealership that seem attractive. If I were actually car shopping at the moment, I'll admit that the current state of uncertainty of GM's future would be a factor in my buy/don't buy decision. The price and other issues would have to be VERY attractive to make me feel like "taking a chance" on buying a vehicle that might not have manufacturer-linked service to keep it running, that is certain.

Again, I don't claim to know all the answers (or even a fair number of them) any more than I know all the questions (which I certainly don't.) But I do feel like there IS a solution to all this whereby GM could survive even if it appeared totally unlike the GM of today (most likely a key ingredient in any chance of a turnaround) and didn't even carry the GM name.

Is that solution an easy one? No way. Quick? Definitely not.

So you tell me, can a nation that can put the first man on the moon, fight in multiple wars simultaneously, and withstand the devastation of earthquakes, hurricanes, and even a "9/11" NOT figure out a solution to the problem of a dying company, even if it is possibly the biggest corporate ship to ever be in distress?

I bitch about the tax dollars going into it as much as anyone, no doubt. But we're in. Too late to argue that point.

So let's either dig our heels in and solve this giant mess we all just bought, or shut up and say "Well, we lost that money" and move on to the next crisis.

If we're gonna try, let's try with all our might.

"Reward Excellent Failures. Punish Mediocre Successes." -- Tom Peters. Let's give it an Excellent try and not a half-ass try.

Posted by Dan Gunter at June 5, 2009 2:34 PM

"We have vastly underestimated how deeply ingrained are the organizational and cultural rigidities that hamper our ability to execute."

Or equally important, our ability to adapt and change with the times and environment.

The kind of things I was part of that allowed an organization to move forward and adapt included:
1. Courage by one or more individuals to buck the culture and take actions that often put their careers and advancements in jeopardy.
2. Real understanding and insight into what can be done. This I find is part experience, part creativity and part razor observation.

In 30+ years of technology work, I can rarely remember when the critical problem was technical. Most successful solutions involved removing obstacles of an organizational or political nature. See my blog for some examples.

Bruce

Posted by Bruce Benson at June 5, 2009 11:48 PM

Bruce, great observations to think about. The problem wreaks of inhibitors to growth. My experience tells me the same thing: the problems are rarely technical problems. The root of the problem is usually discovered to be restraining forces, such as too many layers of management to go through, fear of "bucking the system," and people that are more interested in surviving as an employee than thriving as a team.

The idea of fear being a great motivator is also insufficient to drive significant, needed change. No doubt everyone at GM is in fear for their jobs and futures. Surely they have been for quite some time now. If the restraining forces can be somehow eliminated, they have the technology and ability to build great cars. They can actually build reliable, high quality cars. But they have to be able to build cars that the market wants (without taking years from design to market, meaning that the market's wants have already shifted and the design is too little too late), and do it cost effectively.

Their answer to Chrysler's phenomenally successful P.T. Cruiser was an example of this. They came out with what was actually a pretty nice knock-off/extension of the design and features that made the P.T. Cruiser such a hot seller. But by the time GM rolled it out, P.T. Cruisers had become a commodity, not a rage.

Oops. They looked great on the showroom floor. Unfortunately, too many of them set up near permanent residence there.

Posted by Dan Gunter at June 6, 2009 11:30 AM

great idea!

Posted by hiro at June 8, 2009 6:59 AM

Instead of selling off the Opel brand and cars, GM should have started importing cars or the European car technology in order to catch up a bit.
Opel cars are not the best on the European roads, but they consume far less than the average US car.

Posted by Engago team at June 8, 2009 9:35 AM

Apply this same logic to the financial world as well. Bigness and rigidity doesn't only apply to the industrial world. It also applies to folks who create flights of fancy and sell them as the real thing.

Posted by Michael Gilmore at June 26, 2009 9:52 AM