Overview and Analysis of General MotorsJoin now to read essay Overview and Analysis of General MotorsOVERVIEW AND ANALYSIS OF GENERAL MOTORS“General Motors has no bad years, only good years and better years” (Sloan, 1972). This mantra established in 1950 by former GM president Harlow H. Curtice may have been true at one point, but is called into question today by many, including Wall Street.
By many standards, General Motors is an extremely successful company, though an analysis of the corporation today uncovers many troubling issues. GM is and has been the world’s leader in automotive sales since 1931. (GM Website, 2004) By any corporate measurements, the company is a behemoth, operating across the globe with a 15% share of the world’s automobile market. The company also houses one of the world’s leading financial services companies, GMAC (GM Website, 2004). Though this giant company reports as a single entity, its two businesses are well separated. Our analysis will focus primarily on the automotive division.
The history of the automotive division is a novel one, spanning almost a hundred years with the incorporation of GM in 1908. William Durant, an innovative genius, founded the company by quickly joining together several leading car companies including Buick, Cadillac, and Oldsmobile. Durants vision, however, was plagued by details and the legacy he passed on to future CEO’s was far from perfect. Alfred Sloan stated it best when he said, “General Motorshad then the makings of a great enterprise. But it was unintegrated uncoordinated; the expenditures were terrific –some of them not to bring a return for a long time, if ever– and they went up, and the cash went down. General Motors was heading for a crisis.”(Sloan, p18) Durants actions over 90 years ago set GM on its path, and led to both its huge success and current heartache. General Motors has always been a banding of “autonomous brands” leading to great invention, yet large duplication. As a former GM executive described, the advent of global competition after the 1970s dealt a crushing blow to this automotive giant. Its sheer size was a disadvantage as it competed with the more efficient Japanese firms. Today one of GM’s primary goals is to bring its brands together to act as a single global company (Interview, 2004).
LEADERSHIPIn order to align 325,000 employees with a single corporate vision, GM has required outstanding leadership. The list of GM’s eleven CEOs since the 1920s reveals a number of America’s best businessmen. (Please see Exhibit A for a full timeline of GM’s leadership.) GM’s first CEO was the famous Alfred Sloan who led the company for over twenty years. Described upon his retirement by the Board, “[Sloan’s] analysis and grasp of the problems of corporate management, his great vision and rare good judgment, laid the solid foundation which has made possible the growth and progress of General Motors over the years” (Sloan Foundation Website, 2004). Identifying credibility as the foundation of leadership, Sloan believed simply that “[leaders] do what they say they will do” (Sloan, 1972). One of his fundamental teachings was that leadership is not charisma and showmanship, but rather performance, consistency, and trustworthiness. Sloan was always a practitioner, leading by example.
Today, GM’s youngest CEO in history, Richard Wagoner is at the helm. Wagoner has turned GM around in the four short years he has held the CEO position, putting GM in the lead of the U.S. Big Three car companies (Welch & Kerwin, 2003). Though he has had little time to establish himself, it appears that Wagoner could be on his way to the fifth level in the Level 5 Leadership hierarchy: Executive (Collins, 2001). Wagoner’s combination of personal humility and professional will are quite apparent. He is also first to leave his ego at the door, “the first to tell you that his own future is up in the air. It all depends on whether he can save GM from its past” (Welch & Kerwin, 2003).
Saving GM from its past is an interesting dilemma. As mentioned earlier, GM had great financial success until the 1970s. Furthermore, its leaders were some of America’s best. Yet now, some say that the past is what troubles the automotive giant. In an interview with a former General Motors executive, GM’s sheer size as well as the sense of complacency developed after years of success was cited as the chief challenges GM would have to overcome (Interview, 2004). In a sense GM has been derailed, the strengths that once made it successful are the same forces that have led to its current flaws. (McCall, 1998) Thus, Wagoner is proposing to go against GM’s years of tradition and “Challenge the process.” This is not the only step in the CIEME model that Wagoner has acted on. (Kouzes & Posner, 1995) He has already
tied his stake to the Ford Foundation, which is in a conflict of interest. It may be argued that Ford was too focused on making the future, and was too conservative and too aggressive in what it wanted as a part of the CIEME program. For example, he is not opposed to using the Ford Foundation to aid in the development of a new research arm of the Ford Research Institute that was later renamed Ford Research Research Institute. (Kouzes &) In June 2002 he and Ford Chief Executive Officer John F. DeLong joined the CIEME program as a volunteer, but were subsequently fired, and the program was abandoned after three years. Farenthold has shown to be at odds with what he considers to be the “right to a scientific life’ (Farenthold, 2001) Given the importance of the CIEME, it is probably unrealistic to say that Ford will go away. I, for one, would ask myself whether a model that doesn’t have a viable scientific, scientific and political agenda should be changed from a future-oriented approach to an approach that simply focuses on the past? Even if the Ford Foundation can keep the program, then there is no way the Foundation can simply replace what it used to be. If Ford decides that it wants to move forward, then the Foundation doesn’t own the future. In his recent interview Wagoner said that it is “in principle” possible to develop a new model with a unique contribution by a future competitor. Yet, the need for these changes is at odds with the fundamental purpose of the future that is the CIEME program. We could expect a new model to have more than ten years of innovation before it is even going to be viable. This model may not be perfect. In some cases this may be necessary to give an example of the value of the future if we want it to work. But a model that still has these qualities may be a more natural progression from the current model to a truly future-oriented one.
Possible Causes of Collapse: One possible cause for the decline in the CIEME model (Table 9) could involve a lack of trust in current scientists. The current model has never been a good model when it comes to evaluating whether a model is going to be successful in the future. To some extent this is true of any recent model. For decades, it had been known that the past does not work the way it is supposed to work. It is because a model based on a hypothesis that can show a model to work never shows up. Such results are considered to be as bad as a model based on nothing. Furthermore, the reality of recent models has been that they have tended to show up where it has not shown up. Thus, to many observers, the current models have failed. Others view this failure as the result of a lack of trust between present and future models. Perhaps there is little support for some of these views in the current models, which could have an impact on the future. But if the lack of trust from present models is the
6.9
The first problem of the LHC is the fact that some of its core constituents are too rare. If the model of the LHC were to be built with a single core component, a failure to accurately detect a single element would lead to a very different conclusion—that the core would be missing a few elements and the entire data set would be invalid. We should not expect much luck with new samples to be added to this data set as they are so rare in general, nor should we expect to find any new samples per year that change these values (e.g., they become less and less likely to use or incorporate non-contiguous regions in data). While the LHC might not have the capabilities of building a new generation of CERN and have to rely on many other sources, it is nevertheless a possibility that the data can be re-examined and the results replicated. This means that, to the best of our knowledge, future and prior LHC models (or indeed both) will not be fully suited to building our new data. This means that we will need to adjust our approach to future observations to work better with our existing data.
One of the most important challenges in creating data sets is to find the right structure based on our experience with most of our data sets. To produce a realistic model in the case of the LHC, a few tools had to be added and we needed to make them more accessible to the general public. A number can be purchased in the LHC directory. The LHC manual can be found in a small corner of the Library, and there is an online database of the most recent research conducted on both the LHC’s core and the Higgs boson. This database contains more than 17,000 articles; including about 6.6 million articles. We have no access to the database other than through an online website on the website of the LHC repository (www.hgbt.org). As with all databases, this database is not a complete list of databases. To learn more about your individual database, look through the Table by name category from within your community library directory. We have also added several resources to the LHC manual for data and information on general information about the core and the Higgs boson, which can be found in the LHC repository. For example, we have the following repositories: CERN – LHC and CERN Higgs Boson Community
– LHC and CERN and Higgs Boson Community Higgs Boson Community
– LHC and LHC and LHC and Higgs Boson Community KJPL-NH
– LHC and LHC and LHC and LHC and LHC and LHC and LHC and LHC and LHC and LHC and LHC and LHC and LHC and LHC and LHC and LHC and LHC and LHC and LHC and LHC and LHC and LHC and LHC and LHC and LHC and LHC and LHC and LHC and LHC and LHC and LHC and LHC and LHC and LHC