Archive: March 29, 2009 - April 4, 2009
Organizational change almost invariably requires the turnover of senior leadership, even though it is disruptive and particularly so when outsiders come in.
By Jeffrey Pfeffer | April 3, 2009; 1:43 PM ET | Comments (0)
Removing Wagoner sends a clear signal, but in this case removing the head will not cure the patient. It's time for an industry outsider to bring sweeping changes to this failed industry.
By Lt. Col. Todd Henshaw (Ret.) | April 1, 2009; 10:15 AM ET | Comments (0)
Wagoner's dismissal and the firing of most board members should have been a condition of the initial bailout.
By Pablo Eisenberg | April 1, 2009; 10:12 AM ET | Comments (0)
Removing a leader is a good way to signal change, but it will not necessary lead to change. Employees and others at the organization have to be ready for dramatic change for a leadership change to be effective.
By USC Students | April 1, 2009; 10:01 AM ET | Comments (1)
GM categorizes its leaders as "finance guys" and "car guys" (engineers). Maybe GM needs another leader category, such as a cheerleader/salesman like Lee Iacocca to restore confidence in the company.
By Joanne B. Ciulla | April 1, 2009; 9:32 AM ET | Comments (0)
Wagoner's main failure -- to lead adaptive change -- had many "parents" throughout management and labor within GM and the investment, political, and consuming communities that fed into GM from outside. He shouldn't just be a scapegoat.
By Ronald Heifetz | March 31, 2009; 3:39 PM ET | Comments (0)
While it is reasonable for GM's de facto board of directors -- the U.S. government -- to fire Wagoner, the Obama administration will now be responsible if Wagoner's successor fails.
By Slade Gorton | March 31, 2009; 3:28 PM ET | Comments (0)
Corporate compensation culture of the last 10 or 15 years holds that when things go even moderately well, a handful of people at the very top of the company benefit the most. It's only fair those at the top should bear responsibility for failure.
By Paul R. Portney | March 31, 2009; 2:58 PM ET | Comments (1)
On a Navy ship, the captain is responsible for whatever happens on board. In the corporate world, unfortunately, too many boards of directors make excuses for leaders who fail. Wagoner had to go.
By Ken Adelman | March 31, 2009; 9:55 AM ET | Comments (1)
This isn't like firing a coach after one bad season. This firing a leader who has been losing every season of this decade.
By Warren Bennis | March 31, 2009; 9:50 AM ET | Comments (0)
It would be ridiculous to put the failure of GM at the feet of Mr. Wagoner or any other individual CEO, and, if there are no substantive changes in the GM system, we'll likely be examining his successor's failure in short order.
By George Reed | March 31, 2009; 9:42 AM ET | Comments (0)
The president has yet to articulate how things are going to be better with Rick Wagoner out and a new executive in.
By Yash Gupta | March 30, 2009; 5:54 PM ET | Comments (12)
If Wagoner had any grace, he would have resigned months or even years ago. But so many of current leaders-- political as well as business-- live in bubbles removed from reality.
By Howard Gardner | March 30, 2009; 5:43 PM ET | Comments (2)
Firing Wagoner is a strong signal that under his leadership GM performed poorly. But replacing him with someone whose talent is controlling costs won't cut it.
By Michael Maccoby | March 30, 2009; 3:32 PM ET | Comments (0)
A new age of GM accountability is dawning, but how will it work is in execution, not just in planning.
By Benjamin W. Heineman, Jr. | March 30, 2009; 3:10 PM ET | Comments (3)
It is too bad the President did not find a way to fire the Board as well. There is little or no evidence that GM is prepared for the new reality.
By Marty Linsky | March 30, 2009; 1:49 PM ET | Comments (6)
The problems at GM have been decades in the making, but Wagoner did nothing to alter the course of the company's decline.
By Jeffrey Pfeffer | March 30, 2009; 1:28 PM ET | Comments (0)
The administration threw one CEO overboard; will that fix the problems?
By Mickey Edwards | March 30, 2009; 1:19 PM ET | Comments (2)
The real challenge for GM will be to find a transformational leader from outside GM. Otherwise, we will simply be getting a cultural clone.
By Noel M. Tichy | March 30, 2009; 1:10 PM ET | Comments (1)
While leadership changes should be based on merit, sometimes there is a need for a change at the top in order to facilitate more dramatic changes and to enhance confidence among all key stakeholders.
By David Walker | March 30, 2009; 11:28 AM ET | Comments (1)
Why else fire the CEO unless there are a multitude of doubts about his talent?
By Abraham Zaleznik | March 30, 2009; 11:19 AM ET | Comments (1)
The perception of tough management of taxpayer's dollars is both a strong signal and good politics. It just might help some bankers hear the drums beating, start to cancel their private jet orders, and shelve any new creative bonus strategies.
By Andy Stern | March 30, 2009; 11:14 AM ET | Comments (1)