Wednesday, May 20, 2009

Trouble with GM


We all know the troubles the US automakers are having with the press. The LA Times sensational story General Motors moves to shed 1,100 dealers on May 16th was indicative of the problems within GM and with our press. GM’s woes are familiar to everyone by now. Billions in tax dollars spent to resurrect a mature company in a mature industry is generally not a good way to turn things around. Don’t get me wrong, the team at GM is industrious and committed to what they do. They also are encumbered and inhibited by the internal give and take that is indicative of all large organizations. We see this especially in the government, but it is visible in all large organizations. The bureaucracy takes over and has a life of its own. Executives cannot rise into positions of power without negotiating the bureaucracy and thus are shaped by it. GM Europe and GM North America have long been in an adversarial relationship and no one on the board or the executive team was willing or able to take on the challenges to bring the two organizations into alignment. Now that move is unnecessary as GM Europe will be spun off. The move to shed 1,100 dealers is too little too late. By not taking smaller but braver moves 5-10 years ago, the executives are taking the only options left open to them. In a maturing market, they did not start consolidating domestic dealers, and expanding overseas activities, but stayed the course right into bankruptcy. There are many books and business examples that the group could have leveraged, one of the most popular is If it Ain't Broke...Break It!: And Other Unconventional Wisdom for a Changing Business World all talk about how to initiate change and the need for reinvention within organizations. GM got comfortable and the people inside thought things would never change. Chrysler was the same except worse.

The lesson that we need to take from GM is the one Microsoft’s Bill Gates learned early on. All it takes is one new idea and if they aren’t the ones taking advantage of it then they will be out of business, and so will 1,100 dealerships. In order to avoid the same fate as GM, companies must listen to the dissenting opinions within the group. Though politically incorrect and sometimes annoying, they are also the group that brings the ideas and are willing to communicate through the clutter of platitudes and obscure language. Pay attention to the person who says we need to change how we do business, or “this doesn’t make sense”. Even if it is a training issue, the underlying cause could be an opportunity. The world admitted 4 billion additional players to the market in the last 15 years. India’s Tata now owns Jaguar and they are not encumbered by anti-trust legislation or regulatory reporting to anywhere the same degree as US companies. We have to be better, quicker, more adaptable, and much less comfortable, unless we want to be GM, a company of great people, wanting to do the right things, but not willing or maybe not able to look at the consequences of their actions.

Friday, May 15, 2009

The New Labor Market (What’s the deal?)


Americans are beginning to realize that the relationship between those who need work done and those who can do the work is changing. Notice there was no employer/employee relationship established here. The days of someone working for 30 years disappeared 20 years ago. In a study for the department of labor done in 1999, Susan Houseman correctly identified the “contingent worker”, as a trend in the market. 10 years later we are only now seeing this trend on a mass scale. Independent contractors hired to do a specific task for as long as the contractee is willing to pay. While the department of labor will force companies to classify these individuals as employees, the result is the “employee” will only have a position either until that duty can be performed by cheaper labor (off-shore) or until the business changes.

During the .com boom legislation under the Clinton administration allowed and encouraged investment in India, China, and other countries to support the technology boom here in the US. When people realized that many of these ideas, while great, were not necessarily the economic boom that they thought they were, the money dried up, but the trained talent pool did not. From an investment standpoint and for Walmart shoppers everywhere, why would you pay $40 dollars an hour for an accountant, programmer, automotive assembly line worker, or any other group when you can pay $5-10 dollars per hour and hire twice the number to achieve the same productivity? Pay less in benefits and have a larger workforce available and be able to work 24 hour a day. This becomes a very simple equation. The truth is Americans need to get serious about changing our labor laws to facilitate contract labor and enable those who will be changing jobs every 3-5 years a much more flexible framework in which to operate. This affects everything from the 401k to healthcare. Universal Healthcare as proposed will be an excessive burden to all concerned and still not address the primary issue of how individuals can tap into a privately managed healthcare industry while freeing them and employers from having to bear the burden of insurance. We have an insurance problem not a healthcare problem.

These are but a few of the issues that I will begin talking about in the next few entries.